1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 July 2018 b. Date Received: 31 July 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that she would like an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of becoming a productive member of society, find entitlement to additional VA Benefits as well as veteran's preference for future employment. She believes her discharge was improper because she is a disabled veteran suffering from PTSD, severe depression and anxiety. The applicant contends that she was a victim of military sexual trauma at the of discharge and her unit was unaware of the rape that she had experience on multiple occasions by a member of cadre. She has been serviced connected for two years. 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 and depressed mood/with disturbance of emotions and conduct; Alcohol Abuse; Depression. The applicant is 50% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD from 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 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was improper. Based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge service-connected MST/PTSD diagnosis), the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. Accordingly, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing 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: 14 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being counseled on numerous occasion about her pattern of misconduct and having been punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for her misconduct. Her acts of misconduct ranged from consuming alcohol underage, disrespecting and disobeying noncommissioned officers repeatedly, and failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 March 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 March 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 July 2008 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92G10, Food Service Operation / 1 year, 8 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 15 January 2010, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for drinking underage without permission (minor in consumption) FG Article 15, dated 11 March 2010, for possessing alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage while under 21 years of age on 8 January 2010 and 15 June 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, extra duty for 45 days, and oral reprimand. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs reference being awarded 50 percent service connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (also claimed as depression, attention deficit disorder, gender identity crisis, sleep deprivation, and anxiety); rehabilitation plan; order for name change; letter certifying applicant's gender change; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted by the applicant 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. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 seeks relief contending that she believes her discharge was improper because she is a disabled veteran suffering from PTSD, severe depression and anxiety. The applicant contends that she was a victim of military sexual trauma at the of discharge and her unit was unaware of the rape that she had experience on multiple occasions by a member of cadre. She has been serviced connected for two years. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, as noted by the applicant at the time of her discharge her unit was unaware that she was a victim of military sexual trauma. Therefore, based on the evidence available to the applicant's chain of command it appears 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. Also, it should be noted the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels. The applicant expressed her desire for an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of becoming a productive member of society, find entitlement to additional VA Benefits as well as veteran's preference for future employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's 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 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 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was improper. Based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge service-connected MST/PTSD diagnosis), the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. Accordingly, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing 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 AR20190010953 1