1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 April 2019 b. Date Received: 9 April 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant "experienced MST during an enlistment at Fort Sill" that caused a significant drop in work performance and morale. The applicant was forced to see a therapist for substance abuse and numerous episodes of depression. After discharge, the condition worsened-the applicant lost a lot, emotionally and financially. The chain of command, at the time, were not trustworthy, nor showed any interest in helping the applicant, despite the MST incident. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and major depression during service. The applicant received 80 percent evaluation for compensation from VA. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Chronic PTSD. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD due to MST from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBH, PTSD, and MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635- 200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 June 2014, the applicant was disrespectful in language towards SFC V.C. On 28 February 2014, the applicant failed to obey a direct order from her first sergeant and commander. Between 8 October 2013 and 23 January 2014, the applicant failed to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four different occasions. On 12 September 2012, the applicant was disrespectful in language towards SSG I.L. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 29 July 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 August 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 May 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling statements for failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; disobeying an order or regulation on numerous occasions; financial issues becoming apparent due to collection agencies calling her at work; being insubordinate toward NCOs on numerous occasions; implementing measures to prevent future misconduct; and being disrespectful toward NCOs on numerous occasions. Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 17 October 2012, for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 12 September 2012. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 12 February 2014, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions on 23 January 2014, and 6 January 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 7 January 2014, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 May 2014, reflects an "AXIS I" diagnoses of PTSD, ETOH Abuse, Dysthymic Disorder." The Report further commented, in pertinent part, the applicant had some BH conditions that have been treated; the "PTSD is childhood related and not worsened by military duty"; the "etoh/opiate abuse, the depression, and the anxiety symptoms have not met MRDP, do not qualify for the IDES MEB process"; and the applicant was "administratively cleared for current chapter 14." The applicant's documentary evidence: Medical records, dating in September 2014, May 2014, April 2014, March 2014, and February 2014, indicate the applicant being treated for behavioral health issues involving moderate/severe PTSD, non-deployment related and history of sexual abuse at "age 6-7." (Note that throughout the applicant's medical record, it relates to history of behavioral health issues and diagnoses.) 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 8 April 2019, and DD Form 214. Additional evidence: Applicant's medical records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service that ultimately caused her discharge from the Army. 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's contentions regarding her behavioral health issues which included suffering from the symptoms of PTSD and her experience with an MST incident, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with non-deployment-related post- traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, but no record of the "MST" incident she referred to, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to her misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends her chain of command, at the time, were not trustworthy, nor showed any interest in helping her, despite her MST incident. However, absent any record of a reported "MST" incident, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishments. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to those efforts. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., an official documentary evidence of the applicant's MST incident) for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record, and the applicant did not provide any record of an MST incident. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 31 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post- service diagnoses of OBH, PTSD, and MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / RE-1 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 AR20190006831 1