1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 August 2019 b. Date Received: 12 August 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after her discharge, accompanied by depressive episodes. She desires her rank restored to E-4. 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 PTSD. The applicant is 50% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Bipolar Disorder. 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 28 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (service-connected PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN. (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: 8 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; disrespect toward commissioned officer x2 (8 February 2012 and 6 January 2012); failure to report x7 (22 December 2011, 29 September 2011, 26 September 2011, 7 December 2011, 4 April 2011, 21 June 2010 and 7 June 2010); made false official statement (8 December 2011); driving with suspended license (20 November 2011); and drunk on duty (BAC .093) (25 March 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 19 March 2012, the separation approving authority reviewed the administrative separation packet, administrative separation board findings, and the medical evaluation board proceedings pertaining to the applicant. He determined that the applicant's medical conditions were not direct or substantial contributing causes of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation. He also determined that there are no other circumstances in this case that would warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. He directed the applicant's discharge from the US Army with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 May 2008 / 4 years / extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the Government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68S10, Preventive Medicine Specialist / 4 years, 2 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 3 April 2009 to 8 March 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 20 June 2008, for without authority, being absent from her place of duty (30 May 2008); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $754 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. An Article 15, dated 7 May 2010, for violation of Article 112 UCMJ, not contained in the available records. See unit commander's recommendation memorandum. An Article 15, dated 14 July 2010, for violation of Article 86 x2 UCMJ, not contained in the available records. See unit commander's recommendation memorandum. FG Article 15, dated 24 February 2012, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x2 (26 September 2011 and 7 December 2011); behave herself with disrespect toward CPT K.M.K., her superior commissioned officer, by arguing with her during the end of day safety brief (6 January 2012); behave herself with disrespect toward CPT K.M.K., her superior commissioned officer, by saying lo her "does making you stand at Attention make her feel bigger," or words to that effect and contemptuously talking over her, turning from and leaving while she, the said CPT K.K., was talking to her (8 February 2012); with intent to deceive, make to SGT R.P., an official statement, she was at Madigan and that SPC*G. drove her there, but was unavailable due to being inside the hospital, which statement false in that SPC G., was at the barracks and that he let her borrow his vehicle rather than driving her, and was then known by her to be so false (8 December 2011); and driving her vehicle with a suspended driver's license, issued by South Carolina, in violation of Revised Code of Washington 46.20.342 (20 November 2011); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 April 2012, shows the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI, these conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral perspective for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. There was no evidence of a mental disorder that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation. She could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and meets medical retention requirements (i.e., did not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board). The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and monthly performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Schomburg, PH.D QTC Medical Group Evaluation, dated 25 July 2011, revealed the applicant had Axis I diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and alcohol dependence, partial remission. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 31 October 2011, relates the applicant had an Axis diagnosis of alcohol dependence and adjustment disorder. Medical Evaluation Board Proceeding, dated 5 December 2011, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, met Army retention standards and alcohol dependence in partial remission, met Army retention standards. She was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. VA Document, dated 1 September 2014, indicates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of bipolar disorder NOS (likely bipolar type 2), PTSD, chronic, alcohol abuse, in early remission and cannabis abuse, in early remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a DD Form 214. 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 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and document 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after her discharge, accompanied by depressive episodes. The applicant provided a VA Document, that indicates the she had an Axis I diagnosis of bipolar disorder NOS (likely bipolar type 2), PTSD, chronic, alcohol abuse, in early remission and cannabis abuse, in early remission. The applicant desires her rank / grade restored to SPC / E-4. The record of evidence shows that the applicant was reduced to PVT / E-1 by non-judicial punishment for violating several Articles of the UCMJ. Therefore her rank cannot be restored. 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 28 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (service-connected PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20190011461 6