IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  7 April 2021

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20200010178


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under 
honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Character reference statements
*	Medical documents

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant states she was suffering from an undiagnosed mental condition from 
trauma she suffered in advanced individual training (AIT).  At the time of event she was 
suffering from an undiagnosed mental condition which only got worse when she 
became pregnant.    

3.  On 1 February 1996, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 
8 years.  On 15 February 2001, the applicant was 20 years old and enlisted in the 
Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  She completed basic training and AIT.  She was 
awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistics Specialist).    

4.  On 30 August 2002, drug testing documents show the applicant tested positive for 
marijuana.  She was counseled on 13 September 2002 by her commander for a positive 
urinalysis, initiation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action, and initiation of 
separation action.  The applicant elected not to sign the counseling after being ordered 
by her commander.   

5.  On 9 October 2002, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongfully using marijuana.  She appealed the 
NJP; however, her appealed was denied.  The applicant’s punishment consisted of 
reduction to private (E-1); forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for 2 months; and 
restriction to the limits of her place of duty, worship, barracks, medical and dining 
facility.  

6.  On 10 October 2002, in pertinent part, the applicant stated in her appeal of the 
judgement, she felt for a first offense the punishment was severe and extreme.  After a 
second urinalysis that was given on 16 September 2002, that will prove to be negative, 
she felt this should also be considered in into her punishment.  She felt there was an 
error in the lab results or a mix up of the urine submitted.  She had never had a positive 
urinalysis, and this should be of consideration for her punishment.  

7.  On 18 November 2002, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to 
separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a 
serious offense.  The reason for the proposed action was wrongful use of a control 
substance.  The commander also informed the applicant of her rights.  

	a.  Counsel advised the applicant of the basis for the contemplated separation and 
its effects, the rights available to her and the effect of a waiver of her rights.  She 
requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board and a 
personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  The applicant also 
indicated she would not submit statement in her own behalf.  

	b.  On 9 December 2002, the Commanding General notified the Staff Judge 
Advocate, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii to appoint members to 
serve on standing enlisted separation boards.   

	c.  On 16 December 2002, the applicant’s commander formally recommended she 
be discharged for wrongful use of a controlled substance.  On 20 December 2002, she 
acknowledged receipt of his commander’s recommendation for separation action based 
on commission of a serious offense.

	d.  On 26 December 2002, she submitted a statement to the Division Artillery 
(DIVARTY) Commander.  In pertinent part, the applicant stated she was aware of her 
crime and the punishments that had followed.  She sincerely apologized to her chain of 
command for letting them down and herself.  She took full responsibility of her actions 
and felt she should be given a second chance to prove herself.  

	e.  On 10 February 2003, the Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division, 
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, notified the Division Commander that, the applicant cases 
would be referred to an Administrative Elimination Board.  On 19 February 2003, the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification to appear before an Administrative 
Separation Board.  

	f.  On 3 April 2003, the Administrative Separation Board (ASB) convened.  The ASB 
found the allegation(s) in the Notice of Administrative Separation in accordance with AR 
635-200, chapter 14-12c, commission of a serious offense were supported by a 
preponderance of the evidence and warranted separation.  The applicant was not 
desirable for further retention in the service of the U.S. Army.  The ASB recommended 
she be separated from active service with a chapter 14-12c discharge and given a 
general, under honorable conditions character of service.  

	g.  On 11 April 2003, the applicant submitted a statement to the Commanding 
General.  In pertinent part, she requested a second chance to prove that she had 
learned from her poor error in judgement.  She stated that, she could be a great Soldier.  
She always stayed motivated and volunteered for details.  She always asked to go to 
schools, enjoyed being a Soldier, and felt the one incident should not end her career as 
a Soldier.  The applicant also stated she used marijuana because she told the father of 
her child she was pregnant and he asked her to have an abortion.  She also found out 
he was married to another Soldier and it devastated her.  

	h.  On 5 May 2003, the Commanding General (separation authority) approved the 
applicant’s discharge with a general, under honorable conditions character of service.  
Further rehabilitative requirements were waived. 

8.  On 23 June 2003, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she 
was issued shows she discharge under honorable conditions (general), in accordance 
with AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct.  She completed 2 years, 4 months, 
and 9 days of net active service this period.  She also had 4 years, 7 months, and 11 
days of total prior inactive service.  The applicant was not awarded a personal 
decoration.  

9.  In support of her case, the applicant provided character reference letters stating, in 
pertinent part, she was hazed and picked on by her drill sergeant in AIT.  She also 
provides medical documents that will be provided to the Board and Army Review 
Boards Agency medical staff for review and consideration.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  Chapter 14 deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which 
includes commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.  Paragraph 14-12c(2) states 
"abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct".   The regulation states first time drug 
offenders in the grade of sergeant and above, and all Soldiers with three years or more 
of total military service, active and reserve, will be processed for separation upon 
discovery of a drug offense.  

11.  The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides 
guidance that 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 mental 
health conditions, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 
sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, 
may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or 
experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition 
or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge.

12.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, 
service record, and statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or 
clemency.

13.  MEDICAL REVIEW:      

The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military service records.  The Armed Forces Health 
Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management 
Solutions (HAIMS) was not in use at the time of her service. Her hardcopy military 
medical record was not available for review. A review of her service record indicates a 
mental status examination was completed on 20 Sept 2002. The applicant had no 
psychiatric diagnoses thus meeting retention standards IAW AR 40-501. A review of 
JLV indicates the applicant has received medical care in the VA system since July 
2003. She was first seen in behavioral health on 22 Dec 2015. She reported increased 
stress in Hawaii on 9/11 with anxiety and paranoia that Pearl Harbor might be a target. 
She was diagnosed with Depressive Disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS), Anxiety 
Disorder, NOS, and Insomnia Disorder, NOS. She missed her consult appointments on 
9 Dec 2016 and 9 March 2017. On 4 May 2017, she was reevaluated and reported 
being fired from several jobs for difficulty getting along with supervisors and other 
employees. She was diagnosis with Unspecified Anxiety disorder and irritability/anger 
issues. She was seen on 29 Oct 2019 after missing 4 follow-up appointments in 2018 
for medication management. The applicant stated that she thought she didn’t need the 
Lexapro anymore but now realizes she was wrong. She reported regular use of 
marijuana. No change in diagnosis and she was restarted on Lexapro. On 28 May 2020, 
she was diagnosed with Other trauma and stressor related disorder as a result of 
hazing experienced during AIT. On 28 Jul 2020, she reported family history of Bipolar 
and Schizophrenia. Her provider noted a need to rule out the diagnosis of Bipolar 
Disorder. On 3 Mar 2021, her provider diagnosed her with Unspecified Depressive 
Disorder. She does not have a service connected disability rating. In accordance with 
the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 
25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to support a behavioral health 
condition at the time of her service. The applicant met retention standards at the time of 
her discharge. Under liberal guidance, the diagnosis of Other Trauma and stressor 
related Disorder is considered a mitigating factor for drug use.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.  The Board carefully considered the applicants request, 
supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and 
published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  The 
Board considered the applicant's statement, her record of service, the frequency and 
nature of her misconduct, the reason for her separation.  The Board considered the 
medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official.  
Notwithstanding, the advisory official findings sufficient evidence for mitigation under 
liberal consideration for an upgrade.  The Board agreed she was discharged for 
misconduct and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization 
of service.  The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is 
warranted as she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of 
duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge.  Therefore, they denied 
relief.

?
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.  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of 
limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
2.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets 
policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the 
force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of 
reasons.  Chapter 14 deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which 
includes commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.  Paragraph 14-12c(2) states 
abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct.  The regulation states first time drug 
offenders in the grade of sergeant and above, and all Soldiers with three years or more 
of total military service, active and reserve, will be processed for separation upon 
discovery of a drug offense.

3.  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 (TBI); 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 to 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.  

4.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. 
 
     a.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence.  
BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  However, the 
guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also 
applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted 
based on equity or relief from injustice. 
 
     b.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards 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)	 AR20200010178


6
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1