1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 March 2020 b. Date Received: 16 March 2020 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she is requesting an upgrade because she believes she never received a chain of command who wanted her as a Soldier to grow and would not allow it. Since being stationed at Fort Carson, she had too many obstacles and she could not be the Soldier she planned to be. She had issues with her chain of command. She joined the EFT and was injured during training. When she was back with her unit, she had more issues which led her to mental health. Her therapist requested she change units and assisted in any way possible. She was then under 4th Brigade until deployment. Healing from an injury, the applicant was informed to fly in later. An issue arose with a new female Sergeant, who was using her rank against others. After returning from leave, the applicant was informed she was with a new unit. The applicant was not given a reason when she asked, why. The applicant encountered a Soldier from another unit who not only lied to the applicant but stole from someone in her office of rank because of a personal vendetta, which caused issues outside the Army. When outside authority was given information about this Soldier, not much could be done with the Soldier being discharged and fleeing the state. This is when the applicant's chain of command was switching to a new CPT and 1SG. Having all this go on with the applicant's declining health issues and mental health, timing was becoming an issue. The applicant was not sleeping well, which was causing her to be late or miss formation. The applicant believes the legal issues, changing units, and her medical issues were the reasons her new chain of command did not want to be responsible for anything. The applicant was presented two Article 15s for two different situations. When the applicant questioned one of the Article 15s, her commander removed one of the Article 15s and focused on the one he felt was best. The applicant believes being bounced around was a factor in her chain of command not addressing her issues and she believes her discharge is incorrect. The applicant believes working with males who never worked with females placed her at a disadvantage. If the applicant's chain of command in her first unit would have handled things differently from the start, the Pattern of Misconduct, discharge would not have been a factor. The applicant has the support of Soldiers who cannot only recall these events, but agree. The applicant would like to finish her education. The applicant's discharge makes her feel as though she was not a Soldier and embarrassed. She started to further her education when she was on active duty to have to place it on hold now she is a veteran because of medical and mental issues obtained when on active duty. An upgrade would give the applicant confidence which was taken away, as well as help her with her education she believes she earned in serving her country. In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted on 10 January 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, MST and PTSD diagnoses). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding SPD code of JFF. Please see Section 10 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 November 2010 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / The AMHRR contains Temporary Change of Station Orders, dated 20 January 2012, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, but no evidence the applicant was deployed. f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confinement," effective date 23 February 2013; and From "Confinement" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective date 26 February 2013. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 days: (Confinement, 23 February 2013 - 26 February 2013) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 a 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's record does not contain the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends she suffered from a mental health condition, which led to her discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends her chain of command did not want to deal with her as a Soldier and offered no assistance with her health issues. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends 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. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): N/A b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): N/A 10. 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. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Phase of Life, Partner Relational Problems, Adjustment Disorder, and Bereavement. The applicant reported in-service bi-directional IPV and MST. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Unspecified Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Cannabis Use Disorder, and PTSD due to childhood abuse. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Phase of Life, Partner Relational Problems, Adjustment Disorder, and Bereavement. The applicant reported in-service bi-directional IPV and MST. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. Medical records indicate the basis for separation included "outcomes of her court cases," shoplifting and selling goods, as well as missed appointments and failures to report. If the Board accepts the basis for separation in the medical record, the applicant's diagnoses are not mitigating. Without the basis for separation, medical mitigation or excusal cannot be determined at this time. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The majority of the Board determined that the applicant's MST outweighed the accepted basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends she suffered from a mental health condition. The BH condition of record were considered during Board deliberations, and the Board determined that relief was warranted based on experienced MST. (2) The applicant contends her chain of command did not want to deal with her as a Soldier and offered no assistance with her health issues. The Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with disputes. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings. (4) The applicant contends 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, 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. c. The Board determined that relief was warranted based on applicant's experienced MST. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant experience MST in-service. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board voted to maintain the RE-3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20200005859 6