1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 July 2019 b. Date Received: 8 August 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the reason is improper because if the Board looks at the reports, most of the reports are inequitable. During her son's admission to the hospital, she was the only person who could watch him because of her spouse's incarceration. The applicant had to stay at the hospital with her son because she did not have a babysitter. According to her own beliefs and understanding, her NCO invaded her privacy and personal life to prevent her military career and discrimination. The applicant states she was a great Soldier, friend, and mother before joining the military and wanted someone to understand her grievance. The reports falsely reflect that she had poor duty performance, but she was one of the most dependable cadets in basic training and Advanced Individual Training (AIT). The applicant states there were missing in-service reports and documented proof of the traumatic stress she faced that was not included in the reports. The Board needs to consider her forceful discharge and that they took advantage of her rights. The applicant was not aware of her rights and was confused and abused at the same time. The discharge has impacted her and her family, and now she speaks up to share her concerns. The applicant states the preponderance of evidence in the record corroborates domestic violence that occurred during her service. The applicant faced traumatic distress during her service, and the military should review all of her files and records from the family advocacy, previous NCOs, and the military police. The applicant's change in behavior was because of the stressors, which caused her deteriorated work performance. The applicant states she went through her claim and requests a few years ago and believed that something was still not right and she had to do something. Now she explains again she was the victim and was unaware during her own experience how her NCO and commanders treated her. She is still the victim and should deserve benefits because her experience is referred to as PTSD. Her service records should include reports of her traumatic distress. The applicant had a pattern of behavior for which she was counseled but was abnormal compared to her reports before joining the military. The applicant did everything she was counseled for, and everything appeared to be fine until one day, it was decided she would be discharged. The applicant states, she begged, cried, and whined as if she were a little girl to be given a second chance because it was not fair. The decision to discharge her led the applicant to believe her NCO and her unit did not care that she was the victim in the case. Before her discharge, the applicant was told that she and her son were both victims because of her abuse and domestic violence and what had occurred to him. The military could not protect them from it or prevent it from happening, but the military neglected them. The applicant states, the military reports are void of any mention of abuse and domestic violence. She has military police reports, which do reflect the acts. The applicant also has friends and family members who had witnessed the behavior. In a records review conducted on 26 July 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and IPV). 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), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 31 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 December 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 20 February 2007, she was indebted to Arbor Pointe Apartment in the amount of $1,212.00. On or about 20 February 2007, she was indebted to Net USA in the amount of $230.00. On or about 28 February 2007, she failed to return from lunch on time, 1300 work call. On or about 28 February 2007, she failed to report to 0445 work call. On or about 1 March 2007, she was indebted to Danielle, Pioneer Lending in the amount of $2,513.00. On or about 11 April 2007, she failed to report to 0630 morning accountability formation. On or between 23 March and 13 May bounced several bad checks this in violation of Article 134, uttering bad checks. On or about 7 May 2007, she failed to report to 1630 Anger Management class. On or about 11 May 2007, she lied to SFC Y. J. in that she told her that her rent was update, when she was in fact three months behind in rent. On or about 10 October 2007, she was asked by SFC Y. J. if her vehicle was in her name, she lied to SFC J. in that she told her that is was not in her name. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 January 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 January 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 April 2006 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources / 1 year, 9 months 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 October 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 19 October 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Nervous / counseling; depression; family issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293; ARBA letter; Family Advocacy Case Treatment Plan; two Certificates of Commendation; transcripts; three Certificates of Completion; three third party letters; Case Report and Directive AR20120002286; Congressional Inquiry letter; case separation documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided evidence she has attended college and earned professional certifications. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. 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. 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's AMHRR of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends she was suffering from PTSD because of the abuse and domestic violence she endured while on active duty. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports in service nervousness and depression. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 October 2007, which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends she was discriminated by members of her chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends she had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service were carefully considered. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army. 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) In- and post-service records document Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Post-service, the applicant is service connected for Dysthymic Disorder as a continuation of in-service depression due to IPV and surrounding circumstances. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) The applicant experienced IPV and depression in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) Given the IPV, it is possible the applicant's basis for separation is related. Specifically, the applicant could have FTRs because she was not allowed to leave the home, there were visible marks she didn't want seen, she couldn't leave her child alone with the perpetrator, etc. In regards to dishonesty, it is possible the applicant's trauma led to difficulty trusting authority and extreme anxiety in responding. It is also possible she was threatened by the perpetrator and wasn't sure what to say and to whom. Lastly, debt could be related to the perpetrator spending her money and/or maintaining financial control over her. Therefore, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's IPV does excuse or mitigate the misconduct leading to discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (YES) The Board determined that the applicant's experience of IPV outweighs the discharge. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board concurred due to mitigating IPV. (2) The applicant contends she was suffering from PTSD because of the abuse and domestic violence she endured while on active duty. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports in service nervousness and depression. The Board found no evidence, nor did the applicant provide any, of PTSD diagnosis. Regardless, the ADRB determined that an upgrade was warranted. (3) The applicant contends she was discriminated by members of her chain of command. While the Board considered this contention, it did not factor heavily in their determination to grant an upgrade. (4) The applicant contends she had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service were carefully considered. a. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and IPV). b. Prior Decisions Cited: c. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because her IPV mitigated her FTRs, non-response to authority, and indebtedness. (2) The board voted to change the reason to minor misconduct because, while the offenses occurred, they are relatively minor after mitigation. (3) The SPD code associated with minor misconduct is 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 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 NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry 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 AR20190013851 1