IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 July 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200007484 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: * reinstatement to active duty in the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3 * reversal of her administrative separation and issuance of orders to attend the U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Captains Career Course (CCC) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Power of Attorney, 18 May 2020 * Counsel's Letter, 31 July 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant defers to counsel. 2. Counsel states: a. They contend the applicant's involuntary elimination was improper. The involuntary elimination was based on substandard performance of duty, misconduct, and moral or professional dereliction. The basis for the separation was her unsuccessful graduation from the AMEDD CCC and denial of clinical privileges. b. Her failures were undoubtedly caused by the fact that she was sexually assaulted just 5 months before attending the course. Her credible allegations were not investigated properly, which directly impacted her ability to perform during the course. c. While she may never recover from the trauma of the events of April 2019, enough time has passed where she now believes she can comfortably and effectively graduate and become an effective officer in the U.S. Army as a board-certified anesthesiologist. d. On 27 November 2019, she was notified of separation proceedings against her due to her failure to complete the AMEDD CCC twice. The reason she failed to complete the course was because of the trauma she experienced as the victim of sexual assault and harassment while attending the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) at Fort Sam Houston in 2019. During this course, she was inappropriately touched and groped by two different Soldiers. An Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation was initiated, but only looked into allegations of sexual harassment. e. While the allegation of the sexual assault was investigated, it is obvious to an objective viewer that the investigation was haphazard. The investigation was flawed in many ways, to include, most predominately, investigating under the incorrect criminal allegation. The applicant was sexually assaulted, not sexually harassed. This negative experience of some bad leaders in the Department of the Army not taking her allegations seriously trickled into her performance at the CCC. f. Due to the trauma of these incidents and the mental suffering that occurred, the applicant failed the CCC twice: on 18 September 2019 and on 10 October 2019. On 27 November 2019, she was notified of separation proceedings against her. Shortly thereafter she was referred to the Disability Evaluation System for mental health struggles that derived from being sexually assaulted. 3. The Company C, 187th Medical Battalion, memorandum (Investigation Findings for Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation), 3 May 2019, shows an investigating officer was appointed on 29 April 2019 to conduct an administrative investigation into allegations involving two AMEDD BOLC students sexually harassing the applicant. The investigating officer states: a. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, he concluded the two AMEDD BOLC students did not violate the Army Sexual Harassment Policy against the applicant. From witness interviews, no one could support the applicant's claims of sexual harassment taking place against her. He believes the touch between one student and the applicant was not sexual in nature. He also does not suspect the other student touched the applicant's breast during the brass and ammunition check. b. He recommends the command take no further action against the two AMEDD students. BOLC cadre should look over their standing operating procedures when assigning student details to check other students. Males should check males and females should check females. These standing operating procedures should also clearly outline how brass and ammunition checks should be conducted in order to avoid potential complaints of sexual harassment in the future. 4. The applicant's DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 9 May 2019, shows she successfully completed the AMEDD BOLC. Her rater rated her performance summary as "Achieved Course Standards." 5. The Fort Belvoir Community Hospital memorandum (Notice of Administrative Denial of Clinical Privileges), 20 August 2019, notified the applicant that she was administratively denied clinical privileges. The denial was based upon insufficient objective data required to demonstrate current clinical competence. She was allowed no more than 30 days to provide additional objective data to the Clinical Staff Services Office for reconsideration of the decision. 6. The CCC Leader Training Center memorandum (Recommend (Applicant) for Command Referral Behavioral Health), 24 September 2019, recommended the applicant's command-referred for a behavioral health evaluation. Her actions while assigned as a student at the CCC caused concerns about her mental well-being. 7. The Fort Belvoir Community Hospital memorandum (Final Notice of Administrative Denial of Clinical Privileges), 26 September 2019, notified the applicant that she was provided 30 days to submit additional objective data to the Clinical Staff Service Office for reconsideration of the decision. As of 26 September 2019, she had not submitted any additional data to demonstrate current clinical competence. Based upon the lack of any supplemental or additional objective data to demonstrate current clinical competence, the decision to deny her clinical privileges was final. 8. On 26 September 2019, the applicant received two developmental counseling statements addressing her disruptive and disrespectful behavior while assigned as a student at the CCC. During the office call with the Chief, CCC, on 25 September 2019, the applicant explained that her body has a radar that has the ability to detect perpetrators of unlawful acts before the event occurs and that the Chief, should consider her request to change small groups because of the signals her radar was picking up. The applicant continued to be disruptive and the Chief terminated the meeting. 9. On 27 September 2019, the applicant received two developmental counseling statements address her disruptive behavior and physical contact against a police officer while assigned as a student at the CCC. 10. The CCC memorandum for record from the Chief, CCC (Refusal of a Lawful and Direct Order (Applicant)), 27 September 2019, states the applicant refused to report as ordered to discuss her continuous disruptive behavior. 11. The CCC memorandum for record from her instructor (Summary of Direct Contact with (Applicant) 19-27 September 2019), 27 September 2019, states the purpose of the memorandum is to memorialize noteworthy interactions he has had with the applicant over the past 8 days. a. In a text message and an email from the applicant, the applicant stated her "radar" identified two classmates as having "hazing/bullying tendencies." b. On 23 September 2019, the applicant reported she had just been verbally sexually harassed by another student. He was completely surprised and agreed that she should contact the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program representative. c. On 24 September 2019, she texted him that she was at the military police station reporting a theft of her property. He met with the military police, who briefed him on the interaction they had with the applicant and how he found it very concerning. He stated the applicant believed she had been knowingly targeted by leadership and that Soldiers stole her detergent as retaliation against her. As she was making her point, she repeatedly poked one of the officers with her finger. The unusual speech, behavior, and affect of the applicant made such an impression on the officer. d. On 24 September 2019, she requested to change small groups. The following day, 25 September 2019, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) F____, Chief, CCC, denied her request. She requested an appeal. e. He was informed by LTC F____ that he had to dismiss the applicant from a meeting for repeatedly interrupting him. He later learned the applicant had refused the order to report for counseling. 12. The CCC memorandum for record from a CCC student (Disruptive Interactions), 1 October 2019, documented the applicant's disruptive interactions. 13. The CCC memorandum for record from a CCC instructor (Disruptive Behavior of (Applicant)), 2 October 2019, stated the applicant was disruptive on the following occasions: a. on 2 October 2019, she left the classroom and remained out of class without an explanation or permission for about an hour; and b. on 2 October 2019, he counseled her about missing class time. She did not have a valid excuse for not being in class or for not asking permission for her absence. 14. The CCC memorandum for record from the CCC Chief (Refusing to Train; (Applicant)), 3 October 2019, states: a. On the afternoon of 2 October 2019, the applicant received negative counseling from her instructor for having left the training area classroom on 1 October 2019 without notice or authorization from the instructor. b. During the counseling session, the applicant informed her instructor that she did not agree with his instructions that she was required to report for the next day's physical training on 3 October 2019. c. On 2 October 2019 at approximately 1730 hours, he received a call from the applicant's battalion commander informing him that she was refusing to return to the CCC training area. 15. Her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) covering the period 18 September 2019 through 3 October 2019 shows in: a. Part I (Reason for Submission), "Did Not Graduate"; b. Part II (Academic Achievement), her rater marked "Did Not Meet Standards" for Character/Accountability, Leads/Communication and Engagement, and Achieves/Life Long Learner. Her rater commented: "This Officer's disruptive behavior was adverse [averse] to good order and discipline as described in AR [Army Regulation] 600-20 [Army Command Policy] and was in violation of the individual Student Assessment Plan. This Officer did not demonstrate the discipline required of the training environment and negatively impacted conduct of instruction described in AR [Army Regulation] 350-1 [Army Training and Leader Development]"; c. Part III (Overall Academic Achievement), the reviewing official rated the applicant's overall academic achievement as "Failed to Achieve Course Standards"; and d. Part IV (Authentication), the rater and reviewing official signed the evaluation on 3 October 2019. The applicant's signature block shows no entry. 16. On 9 October 2019, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the academic evaluation report referral memorandum and commented: "Retaliation by CCC cadre and specifically LTC F____." 17. The Troop Command, Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, memorandum for record from her company commander (Refusal to Sign DA Form 1059 – (Applicant)), 15 October 2019, states: a. She presented the applicant with a copy of her DA Form 1059 and accompanying letter of instruction. She read and initialed the letter of instruction indicating her preference to digitally sign the academic evaluation report. b. On 15 October 2019, the applicant informed her that now she declines to sign the academic evaluation report and stated she did not feel comfortable writing comments or signing her academic evaluation report without speaking to her SHARP representative. 18. On 4 November 2019, the applicant received developmental counseling from her company commander to inform her that a suspension of favorable actions had been initiated against her because: a. she received a final notice of administrative denial of clinical privileges and loss of clinical privileges is the basis of consideration for separation from military service; and b. she was dismissed from the CCC. 19. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) memorandum (Law Enforcement Report – Final), 5 November 2019, shows the applicant was named as the victim of abusive sexual contact. a. The Fort Belvoir CID Office was notified by the applicant that a BOLC trainee officer touched her breasts during a range exercise while attending BOLC. b. She was interviewed and stated the BOLC trainee officer inappropriately touched her breasts during his physical check of her person for brass and ammunition during a brass and ammunition check prior to exiting an M-16 firing range. Additionally, she stated another trainee officer touched her on the leg during an in processing briefing and on the arm during a field training exercise. c. A review of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation revealed the applicant previously reported these incidents as sexual harassment. Multiple eye-witnesses were interviewed pertaining to the knee-touch incident and related the contact did not appear inappropriate. Multiple female classmates were interviewed and stated they didn't witness or encounter inappropriate behavior during range-clearing procedures and were treated in a professional manner. The Army Regulation 15-6 investigation found the allegations of sexual harassment to be unsubstantiated. d. The BOLC trainee officer waived his rights and denied touching the applicant. He stated he instructed the applicant to open and remove all contents from her pockets during the ammunition and brass inspection, wherein he instructed her to open her breast pocket and visually inspected it. 20. On 15 November 2019, she received two developmental counseling statements from her company commander addressing her unprofessional conduct and disrespectful behavior toward a senior officer, and to order her compliance with an ongoing investigation. 21. On 15 November 2019, she received developmental counseling from her company commander to address her comment of a "preparing for a SHARP inspection." She disagreed with the counseling and stated: "I said that I am a sexual assault victim and survivor" and "I have reached out to Congress for a Congressional Inquiry." 22. On 17 November 2019, she received two developmental counseling statements from her company commander for failure to report and failure to follow a lawful order. She disagreed with the counseling and stated: "Again, trust in this Command is broken. Bad players include CPT O____, LTC O____, 1SG [First Sergeant] E____ and CPT H____" and "will notify BG [Brigadier General] P____ about my reaching out to Congress." 23. The Regional Health Command-Atlantic Disposition Recommendations, 18 November 2019, shows in: a. Part I, the applicant's company commander recommended her elimination and her commented: "[Applicant] received a notice of administrative denial of clinical privileges, failed to submit additional objective data during her thirty-day appeal window and received her notice of final denial. She remains un-credentialed and unable to function in her role as an anesthesiologist. Additionally, [Applicant] does not demonstrate leadership characteristics becoming of a United States Army Officer." b. Part II, the applicant's troop commander recommended her elimination and commented: "[Applicant] has shown a pattern of deficiencies since her arrival at Troop Command – FBCH [Fort Belvoir Community Hospital]. She has failed to keep pace with contemporaries, both in clinical development and officer development. She was unable to be privileged as an anesthesiologist and on notification of denial of clinical privileges she did not submit further documentation to show clinical competence. She withdrew prior to completion of the AMEDD CCC. Her conduct during the course was not consistent with expected of an officer of her rank, her disruptive behavior was adverse [averse] to good order and discipline, and she did not demonstrate the discipline required of the training environment." 24. The Headquarters, Regional Health Command-Atlantic, memorandum (Initiation of Elimination), 25 November 2019, notified her of her requirement to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) for substandard performance of duty and misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The reasons for elimination consisted of her denial of clinical privileges and failure to complete the CCC. 25. Her DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), 6 December 2019, shows in: a. Section I (Reason for Behavioral Health Evaluation), CPT/O-3 Separation Personality Disorder. b. Section II (Behavioral Health Disposition Determination), the Behavioral Health Provider marked: (1) Behavioral Health condition meets retention standards but may require waiver for deployability within specific areas of operation. (2) Service Member (SM) is on a Profile which expires on 5 March 2020. (3) The condition is of sufficient severity to interfere with the SM's ability to function in the military. The SM is not amenable to Behavioral Health treatment and is unlikely to respond to Command efforts at rehabilitation. c. Section IV (Diagnoses), "Other specified personality disorder with prominent obsessive compulsive and paranoid features." d. Section VI (Recommendations and Comments for Commander), the Behavioral Health Provider marked "Yes" for "SM's behavioral health condition was likely a mitigating factor in the alleged behavior leading to administrative separation," and commented, in part: (1) The personality disorder is of sufficient severity to interfere with the Soldier's ability to function in the military. The symptoms or behavioral problems existed prior to military service and do not simply represent maladjustment to the military. (2) Recommend the Commander is cleared to proceed with administrative separation for personality disorder from Behavioral Health perspective. 26. The applicant's memorandum (Rebuttal to Initiation of Elimination of (Applicant)), 11 February 2020, states: a. She requests withdrawal or suspension of the elimination action against her and allowance for processing by an appropriate medical board for the injuries she suffered while on active duty. In the alternative, she requests approval of an unqualified resignation with a service characterization of "honorable." b. She does not believe she has failed to demonstrate competency in her field and the decision to revoke her clinical privileges failed to take into consideration her previous work. c. She acknowledges that some of her behavior during the CCC was inappropriate and not what is expected of an officer. She was subjected to repeated harassment by superiors. Their reprisals further exacerbated the emotional trauma she was experiencing as a victim of sexual assault/harassment. As a result, her judgment was clouded and she made a few poor choices, which she otherwise would not have made. d. During her attendance at BOLC, she was sexually assaulted and harassed by fellow students on multiple occasions, and she reported these incidents shortly after they occurred. On one occasion a student conducted a shakedown after completing rifle qualification, During this interaction, the male student placed his hands, palms open, upon her breasts. The other instance of sexual assault occurred when another student placed his hand on her thigh during the in-processing phase, and his right pinky finger touched her inner thigh. He then repeated this inappropriate behavior by placing his hand on her knee later during the field training exercise portion of the BOLC. e. On 26 September 2019, she received a final notice of administrative denial of clinical privileges. She received a previous notice on 22 August 2019 and she failed to respond to the proposed action because she firmly believed any rebuttal submitted would be futile, as it appeared the command had reached a predetermined decision about her qualifications. f. On 2 October 2019, she received developmental counseling for leaving class in the middle of a period of instruction. The reason for her absence was due to a scheduled meeting with the Department of Defense Inspector General to discuss her complaint she had previously filed. The matter was extremely private and she did not feel disclosing the purpose of the call was warranted. g. On or about 22 January 2020, she was informed that she would be undergoing medical evaluation board processing in order to determine her fitness for duty. h. Due to the repeated sexual assaults and retaliation committed against her, she began to suffer extreme emotional duress. Her mental health only continued to deteriorate after her chain of command dismissed her complaints and failed to treat her with any dignity. The failure of the investigating officer to conduct a thorough and proper review into the allegations is tantamount to a cover up of the sexual assault. i. As a result of these grave injustices, she has been forced to seek mental health treatment and is currently unable to perform the duties expected of her as an officer. None of these issues were present prior to commissioning in the Army; rather, they arose after repeated sexual assaults and multiple breaches of duty by her chain of command and the investigating officer. 27. Her Standard Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), 5 March 2020, shows she reported she was not taking any medications. a. She reported she currently had or had in the past the following medical conditions: * shortness of breath * worn contact lenses or glasses * painful shoulder, elbow or wrist * impaired use of arms, legs, hands, or feet * a head injury, memory loss or amnesia * palpation, pounding heart or abnormal heartbeat * nervous trouble of any sort * loss of memory or amnesia, or neurological symptoms * frequent trouble sleeping * received counseling of any type * depression or excessive worry * been evaluated or treated for a mental condition * treated in an emergency room * been a patient in any type of hospital * consulted or treated by clinics, physicians, heelers, or other practitioners within the past 5 years for other than minor illnesses b. In item 29 (Explanations of "Yes" Answers), she reported, in part: * some memory loss * anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis * counseling for sexual assault during Army training, April 2019, subsequent retaliation, and PTSD * depressive symptoms * suicidal/homicidal ideation, side-effect from Zoloft (sertraline used to treat depression, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), and premenstrual dysphoric disorder)/gastrointestinal illness, Army medical negligence, 28 December 2019, Fort Belvoir Community Hospital inpatient psychiatric, discharge 15 January 2020 * starting November 2019 for PTSD, she listed five health providers 28. The applicant's Standard Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), 5 March 2020, shows the examining physician did not examine her psychiatric condition and noted: "see medical records." The examining physician also noted: "SM [service member] is undergoing MEB [medical evaluation board] – see P3 [permanent 3] profile on MEDPROS [Medical Protection System]." The examining physician determined she was not medically qualified. 29. The Headquarters, Regional Health Command-Atlantic, memorandum from the Commanding General (Recommendation for Officer Elimination Pertaining to (Applicant)), 16 March 2020, states that having reviewed the elimination action, the chain of command recommendations, and the applicant's service record, he recommended the applicant's elimination from the U.S. Army and her service be characterized as "General, Under Honorable Conditions." 30. The Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer's email (Medical Board Processing), 16 April 2020, officially notified the applicant that she doesn't have a medical condition that falls below the retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. The original physical profile submitted for consideration for the medical evaluation board was no longer valid as the diagnosis provided on the DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) was not supported in the applicant's medical records. She will not undergo processing for a medical board. 31. The U.S. Army Military District of Washington memorandum from the Commanding General (General Court-Martial Convening Authority Review – Officer Elimination of (Applicant)), 20 May 2020, states that after careful consideration of the entire packet, to include the applicant's responses and assertions, he determined: a. The elimination action does not appear to be in retaliation resulting from the applicant filing an unrestricted sexual assault report. b. The elimination action does not involve a medical condition that is related to the sexual assault. c. The applicant's separation is in the best interests of the U.S. Army and the applicant. 32. The Army Review Boards Agency memorandum (Probationary Officer Elimination Case (Applicant)), 17 June 2020, stated the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board has reviewed the applicant's Probationary Officer Elimination Case. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army with an honorable characterization of service. The elimination is based on her substandard performance of duty, and misconduct and moral or professional dereliction. 33. She was honorably discharged on 26 June 2020. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in: * item 12c (Net Active Service) – 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days * item 24 (Character of Service) – Honorable * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 600-8-24 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Unacceptable Conduct 34. The Army Review Boards Agency letter, 22 June 2021, provided the applicant and her counsel a copy of the law enforcement reports received from the CID. The processing of the application was placed on hold for 15 days from the date of the letter to allow the opportunity for the applicant and her counsel to submit comments. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board also considered her counsel’s statement, her record of service, and the reason for her separation. The Board determined there is insufficient evidence that shows an error or injustice occurred with the decision to involuntarily separate her from service, and agreed reinstatement is not warranted at this time. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX XX :XX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Army Regulation 15-6 establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established by other regulations or directives. Paragraph 5-2 states IOs may use whatever method they deem most efficient and effective for acquiring information. Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information may also be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment, including officer procurement programs, medical fitness standards for retention and separation. Chapter 3 (Medial Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement) lists the various disqualifying medical conditions and/or physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for all commissioned officers of the Regular Army. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officer on active duty for 30 days or more. It provides principles of support, standard of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required to support officer transfers and discharges. Paragraph 4-2 (Reasons for Elimination) states, while not all inclusive, when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be initiated for: substandard performance duty, to include failure of a course at service school for academic reasons by a probationary or non-probationary Regular Army Officer; and misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interest of national security, to include conduct or actions that result in the loss of a professional status, such as withdrawal, suspension or abandonment of professional license, endorsement, or certification that is directly or indirectly connected with or is necessary for the performance of one's military duties. 5. Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy) prescribes the policies and responsibilities of command, which include the Army Ready and Resilient Campaign Plan, military discipline and conduct, the Army Military Equal Opportunity Program, the Army Harassment Prevention and Response Program, and the Army SHARP Program. Section II (Terms) defines: a. Sexual Assault as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The term includes a broad range of sexual offenses including the following specific Uniform Code of Military Justice offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy (forced oral or anal sex), and attempts to commit these acts. b. Sexual Harassment as conduct that involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments of a general nature when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person’s job, pay or career; or submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment and is so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive and the victim does perceive, the environment as hostile of offensive. Any use or condonation, by any person in a supervisory or command position, of any form of sexual behavior to control, influence or affect the career, pay, or job of a member of the armed forces or a DA Civilian employee. Any deliberate or repeated unwelcome verbal comment or gesture of a sexual nature related to the work environment by any member of the Armed Forces or DA Civilian employee. 6. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicants' service. 7. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 8. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200007484 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1