1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 April 2019 b. Date Received: 29 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, was raped by a sergeant, who was on CQ duty. The applicant was also charged with adultery. The military turned its back on the applicant. The incident was never thoroughly investigated. The applicant had no one to help fight it. The applicant has since struggled with the MST and nightmares, causing the applicant to become a drug addict and homeless, and spending time in jail. The applicant was a great Soldier and deserves an honorable discharge. An upgrade would allow the applicant to return to school. 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 with Anxiety, Alcohol Abuse, Opioid Abuse, and MST. The applicant is 30% service-connected for Mood Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Depressive Disorder, Opioid Dependence, Alcohol Abuse, Cannabis Dependence, Other Stimulant Abuse, Anxiety Disorder, Cocaine Dependence, Alcohol Abuse, Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress, and MST. 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 26 February 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBHI and MST), and homelessness. 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 October 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 September 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 March 2010, the applicant made a false official statement. On 30 March 2010, the applicant committed adultery. On 6 March 2010, the applicant engaged in driving under the influence. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 September 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 September 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 July 2008 / 5 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 13 years / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 3 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; KSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 30 March 2010, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for refusing to take a test to measure the alcohol content of her breath due to reasonable belief that she was driving under the influence of alcohol. CID Report, dated 20 April 2010, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for making a false official statement. Counseling statements for making a false official statement; charges of rape and burglary were unfounded by CID Investigation; knowing and willingly distributing alcohol to a minor; driving under the influence; disobeying a superior commissioned officer; failing to obey an order or regulation; driving privileges being suspended; and losing barracks room key. CG Article 15, dated 25 August 2010, got making a false official statement on 30 March 2010, wrongfully having a sexual intercourse with a married man on 30 March 2010, and being drunk and disorderly on 30 March 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $378, 14 days of extra duty, and an oral reprimand. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 25 May 2010, providing no diagnosis, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Health Record, dated 20 May 2010, notes behavioral health issues, such as an "Adjustment disorder with anxiety." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 20 April 2019; DD Form 214. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." "Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 document 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 serious incidents 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that her complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The applicant's contentions regarding her behavioral health issues resulting from her assertion of being raped by a sergeant who was on CQ duty, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. Further review of the records relate to two separate sexual assault incidents, in February 2009_ and March 2010; however, the specific incident she relates to that occurred in March 2010, was determined legally unfounded. If based on the available record, 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 the discharge was unjust because the military turned its back on her; the incident was never thoroughly investigated; and she had no one to help her fight it. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow her to return to school by receiving educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends that she became homeless. However, eligibility for housing supportive program benefits for Veterans does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The available 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 26 February 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBHI and MST), and homelessness. 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 AR20190009124 1