1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 October 2019 b. Date Received: 4 October 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was not fully in her right mind when requesting her discharge. The applicant states she was suffering from stress and anxiety and made a poor decision to depart from the military, a decision she regrets it to this day. The applicant states she let down, not only herself, but her country the day she decided to depart. The applicant states it has taken a very long time for her to transition fully into civilian life, but she is now a wife and mother who wishes to provide a better life to her family. The applicant further states she is requesting an upgrade so that she can take advantage of the educational benefits of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. She would like to complete her degree and be able to work in the medical field to continue serving her community. The applicant states at no time did she commit a serious offense. The applicant states loyalty and family were her number one priority. She states she was there for a friend/Soldier who did not live by a code of conduct and damaged property. The applicant states she was not associated with the act that was committed. The applicant hopes that her past mistakes and lapse of judgement made in one decision do not paint a picture of her not being worthy of change forever. In a records review conducted on 8 July 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For receiving an Article 15 on 13 March 2012 for violation of Article 109 on or about 2 September 2011 and 27 September 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 June 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 November 2008 / 4 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / 1 Year of College / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources / 3 years 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, GCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for two counts of Article 109, Destruction of Non-Military Property and notification of separation from the Army under Chapter 14. Military Police Report with supporting documents, dated 27 September 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended by the Military authorities for wrongful damage to private property and conspiracy. FG Article 15, dated 13 March 2012, for willfully and wrongfully damage, by cutting with a knife, the tires on a Ford truck, of a value of about $500 or more, the property of SPC G., on 27 September 2011 and willfully and wrongfully damage, by hitting with a crowbar, the taillight and mirror of a Jeep Wrangler, of a value of about $500 or less, the property of SPC A., on 2 September 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $462 pay, (suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 11 June 2012); and extra duty for 14 days, (suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 11 June 2012). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; Enlisted Records Brief; Medical Documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends she suffered from stress and anxiety and was not in her right mind when she requested a discharge from the Army. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of a stress or anxiety diagnosis. The applicant did, however, submit evidence with her application to support the contention. The AMHRR does not contain any documentation to show she underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE), which would have indicated the applicant was or was not mentally responsible and did or did not recognize right from wrong. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 29 June 2021, requesting documentation to support a stress and anxiety diagnosis and received a response from the applicant on 29 July 2021, which included a list of medications taken while serving and Progress Notes dated 14 July 2021, from Santa Rosa Behavioral Health Clinic which showed the applicant did suffer from a generalized anxiety disorder. The applicant contends she wishes to provide a better life for her family and an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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 applicant contends the one decision she made which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant’s military documents reflect her last name while serving as “Ochoa “. On the applicant’s DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), show her name is listed as “Resende“, and she does state that she is now a wife and a mother. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO NOS, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Obsessive Compulsive DO (OCD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the diagnoses of Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO NOS, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Obsessive Compulsive DO (OCD) were all made while the applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with MDD, Anxiety DO NOS, OCD and ADHD, these conditions do not mitigate her misconduct as none of these conditions affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Review of her records indicates that her issues with low frustration tolerance, mood dysregulation and decreased impulsive control were more likely than not due to underlying characterological factors and not due to any major mental illness. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions of Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO NOS, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Obsessive Compulsive DO (OCD) completely outweigh the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongful damage to private property and conspiracy. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from stress and anxiety and was not in her right mind when requesting a discharge from the Army. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records. It revealed the applicant was diagnosed with MDD, Anxiety DO NOS, OCD and ADHD. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow for use of educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do 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. (3) The applicant contends the one decision she made which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of an isolated incident, however the Board determined that there is no evidence, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant’s MDD, Anxiety DO NOS, OCD and ADHD did not mitigate the offense of wrongful damage to private property and conspiracy. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190012782 1