1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 February 2019 b. Date Received: 22 February 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were mitigating psychological health factors at the time of discharge. The discharge has resulted in an injustice because the applicant was under a much stress and PTSD and Major Depression disorder were the contributing factors of the unsatisfactory performance. The applicant states, since discharge, has been formally diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which has been verified as serviced-connected by the Veteran Administration. The applicant received a disability rating of 70 percent for PTSD, because of the trauma sustained while working at Guantanamo Bay and Fort Leavenworth. The major depression also affected the applicant's ability to perform at the standards necessary to survive in those imminent danger areas. The applicant states, the mental health was apparent to the unit and was hospitalized at Research Psychiatric Center from 26 September to 23 October 2013, for depressive symptoms. The applicant was treated in the Star unit, which addressed symptoms of depression and PTSD. The applicant believes the mental health problems had a direct effect on degraded performance and the reason why the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance. Before June 2013, the performance was up to standards, but after June 2013, "[the applicant] could not keep it all together." After June 2013, the disorders changed the applicant's behaviors and caused the applicant to act in more laissez faire way, which the applicant would have never acted in that way, especially in that type of working environment. The applicant requests the official records to be reviewed in a more lenient manner because of the service-connect disabilities and based on the 2014, Supplemental Guidance to Military BCMRs/BCNRs by Veterans Claiming PTSD, and the 2016, Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military BCMRs/BCNRs by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI. The disabilities should be considered when the Board makes their final decision. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Major Depression and Anxiety. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD with Major Depression from the VA. The VA has also documented MST. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and MST). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She had been counseled multiple times by her leadership for events ranging from failing to obey a lawful regulation (USDB Regulation 190-3), to insubordinate conduct towards an NCO. Specifically, she was counseled on 5 June 2013, because she was caught playing with a Nintendo OS, while on duty. On 7 June 2013, she was counseled because she fell asleep while on duty and had struggled that month with accomplishing her daily duties. On 19 July 2013, she was counseled because she had not conducted her inspections, as she was required to do, but had documented that the inspections were completed without any events to report. On 25 July 2013, she was counseled because she had failed to complete SSD1, and then lied to her NCO about completing it. On 4 August 2013, she was counseled because she was caught reading a fantasy book. On 25 September 2013, she was counseled because while performing her duties in the dining facilities, she "fist bumped" an inmate; and, The commander believed that the applicant would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and become a satisfactory Soldier. He further believed that this behavior was likely to continue, and that her ability to perform her duties effectively was unlikely and that her potential for advancement or leadership was also unlikely. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 December 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 January 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 August 2011 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31E10, Internment Resettlement Specialist / 2 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Cuba / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report, dated 26 December 2012, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, dated 20 August 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 November 2013, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major Depression, Moderate. The applicant provided evidence that she is rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD with major depression and sleep disturbances, by the VA, effective 1 February 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; third party statement; DA Form 3822; Rated disability summary. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed to parenthood. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is "JHJ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Major Depression, Moderate; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 6 November 2013, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates she was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that she had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant's performance. The author recognized her good performance while in the Army and the change in her behavior; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and MST). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190003616 1