1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 July 2019 b. Date Received: 15 July 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that she is a mother now and would like to be able to get the benefits she could get if she had an honorable discharge, like medical. She has a VA hospital in the next town over and she knows she has a lot of health problems but cannot go to the VA because she cannot get approved because of her discharge. She is going to school to become a nurse and is afraid that later on that her discharge can stop her from getting a good job that can make a good life for her and daughter. She contends that she was never in trouble in the Army and was always an outstanding Soldier. She was in Iraq in 2006 and was a driver in the Colonel's PSD convoy. She was always the go-to person for all her chain of command because they knew she could be trusted and would get the job done. The reason why she was discharged was because she went AWOL after coming back from Iraq. She got pregnant and had a miscarriage at 4 months and she was very depressed. She contends that she tried talking to her chain of command and even went to mental health; no one wanted to help so she left in fear that she might turn to suicide because she was at her lowest point. She asks out of the goodness of the boards heart to please, please consider her for an upgrade. The applicant also contends that she has one enlistment where she served an entire year in Iraq and was discharged with honorable discharge; however, she never received a DD Form 214 for that period of service. 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 no BH diagnoses. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 9 December 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 22 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form's 458, Charge Sheets which indicates on 21 April 2011, the applicant was charged with being absent from her unit from 19 September 2007 until her return on 19 March 2011 and 20 March 2011 until her return on 19 April 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 April 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 June 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 June 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 August 2004 to 20 June 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 December 2005 to 30 November 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-CS, GWOTEM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 2 October 2007, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for going AWOL 19 September 2007. DD Form's 4187 (Personnel Action) which changed the applicant's duty status from Present for Duty to AWOL 20 March 2011; AWOL to Present for Duty19 April 2011; and AWOL to Dropped from Rolls 21 April 2011. Memorandum for Commander, subject Medical and Mental Health Examination for Separation Statement of Option, dated 20 April 2011; which indicates the applicant elected to not request a separation medical examination and or mental health evaluation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Absent without leave x2 for a total of 1280 days: 1249 days (17 September 2007 to 19 March 2011), mode of return unknown and 31 days (20 March 2011 to 19 April 2011), surrendered. The DD Form 214 under review makes reference to 62 days of excess leave (22 April 2011 to 22 June 2011). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; online application from a prior records review; honorable discharge certificate; enlistment documents; enlisted record brief (ERB), separation documents; DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offenses, or a lesser included offense, and she indicated she understood she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that the reason why she was discharged was because she went AWOL after coming back from Iraq. She got pregnant and had a miscarriage at 4 months and she was very depressed. She contends that she tried talking to her chain of command and even went to mental health; no one wanted to help so she left in fear that she might turn to suicide because she was at her lowest point. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service at the time of discharge. Also the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant expressed her desire for a DD Form 214 for a prior period of honorable service. However, AR 635-5, paragraph 2-1b(2) shows that a DD Form will not be prepared for enlisted Soldiers discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. Evidence shows the applicant had immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 2007 for a period of 4 years following her initial enlistment. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. 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 9 December 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20190010307 3