1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 January 2020 b. Date Received: 16 March 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant also requests reinstatement of her GI Bill benefit, addition of her campaign ribbons and the authorization for her claim for loss of personal property. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was subject to unfair and prejudicial discharge proceedings, which included her biased leadership and a discreditable JAG. The applicant states, she was planning on initiating her ACAP to ETS out of the United States Army, but a deployment was going to interfere with her discharge date. The applicant's chain of command at the time, insisted she deploy for the opportunity to get promoted to Corporal and then would be redeployed prior to her ETS date. Although her SRP Accountability Checklist (pre- deployment medical status), was signed off as non-deployable due to physical therapy requirements, her First Sergeant called the applicant's medical provider to overwrite it after she advised him of her status. The applicant then deployed a week later. Prior to the chapter 14 separation, which resulted in her discharge only weeks before her initial ETS date, she had model conduct as a junior enlisted Soldier. The applicant earned accolades, completed numerous professional training, volunteered and was the go-to Soldier for logistical demands and additional duties. The magnitude of her success was not recognized by her chain of command. The applicant's accomplishments only led her deployment chain of command to see promotion potential, if she led the way in the supply room overseas. The applicant considered herself a subject matter expert in her MOS by the end of her enlistment, but an unhappy battle-buddy exposed her irrelevant personal life, which halted her graceful separation out the Army. The applicant was accused of adultery/fraternization and conspiracy to commit fraud against the U.S. Government. The credibility of her military conduct became disregarded when a newly enlisted private within her company tainted all that she had worked for due to her inability to comprehend the applicant's isolated personal life. After the initial investigation started, the applicant was exposed to recurring humiliation and judgment. The evidence presented to support the accusations in her case, was hearsay text messages and unverified/false witness statements. At the time she was deployed to Kuwait, she was married, but she was going through some issues with her husband, which caused her emotional state to be unpredictable. She was also having medical problems and her hormones were substantially unstable. The applicant states, she suffered from PTSD, which resulted from a relationship prior to her marriage. During the investigation, the applicant revealed personal trauma she had experienced as a young adult to help explain her momentary fraternizing behavior, but the shared insight only led to more grief as her trauma was not taken seriously. The applicant tried seeking help from local representatives or the therapy sessions, but nothing alleviated her distress from the toxic environment she was immersed in and the permanent scarlet A on her forehead. The applicant believes disciplinary actions were necessary for her short-lived relationship with an NCO, but she does not believe that her mistake was grounds for a serious offense. The applicant states, she was discharged without the opportunity for corrective action or rehabilitation. She spent six months overseas fighting a battle, which was not the battle she originally deployed for and knows she did not deserve the treatment she faced from her leadership and peers. Since her discharge, she has rehabilitated and is building rapport. The applicant states, she has had a continuous record of good behavior and proof of ambition and successful life after her discharge. The applicant is an Administrative Support Assistant for the Western Archeological and Conservation Center in the Tucson. She is the property manager for her park and the Southern Arizona Office, Montezuma Castle National Monument, TONTO National Park and Tuzigoot National Monument. The applicant has been recognized for her work ethic and accomplishments. Before the Department of Interior hired her, she was offered a grant from a local community college and was able to finish 10 semester hours of college. The applicant further details her contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with her application. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder; Anxiety Disorder NOS; Phase of Life Circumstance Problem; Relational Problems. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety Disorder, unspecified and Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, unspecified. The applicant is 70% service connected, 30% for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (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: 17 July 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 February 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant engaged in an adulterous and prohibited relationship with a married Non-commissioned Officer, and fraternized with a Commissioned Officer. In July of 2015, she conspired with SPC R. M. to commit larceny against the Government, through a fraudulent marriage scheme to claim BAH with Dependents, and thereby wrongfully obtained approximately $4,563.76 between August 2015 and January 2016. The applicant obstructed justice through her efforts, in the course of an authorized search and seizure during an investigation, to delete records of her inappropriate communications with a married Non-commissioned Officer. The applicant made a false official statement denying anything sexual occurred between her and a married Non-commissioned Officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 February 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 May 2013 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (5 October 2015 - 2 May 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military No-Contact Order, dated 18 January 2016, reflects the applicant ordered to have absolutely no contact with SFC G. J., until further notice. Pursuant to this order the applicant was directed to: Have no physical contact with SFC J. G.; remain 100 yards away at all times, unless present at official proceedings; Make no contact through phone, mail, e-mail, text message with SFC J. G.; Make no attempt to request another individual to contact SFC J. G.; and, Report all contacts/attempts at contact initiated by SFC J. G. Confinement Order, dated 22 January 2016, reflects the applicant was charged with and found guilty of: Article 92 (x2), (Violation of 600-20, Sexual Relationship), (Violation of 600-20, Inappropriate Relationship): Article 107, (False Official Statement); Article 134 (x4), (Adultery), (Obstruction); Article 121, (Theft of Military Property). Sentence Adjudged: Confinement for 10 days; forfeiture of $1037 pay per month for 1 months; and reduction to Private (E-1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 11 days (Military Confinement, 22 January 2016 - 1 February 2016) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Behavioral Health Treatment (memo), dated 14 January 2016, reflects the applicant received therapy for Relational Problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; case separation packet; 15 letters of support; SRP Accountability Checklist; Marriage License; Relief of Responsibility for Property (memo); DD Form 827, with allied documents; DD Form 1842; Verification of Financial Liability of Property Loss; DD Form 200, with allied documents; college transcripts; College admission letter; email; coin picture; Annual Property Inventories; Western Archeological and Conversation Center staff information. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she has had a continuous record of good behavior. The applicant is an Administrative Support Assistant for the Western Archeological and Conservation Center in the Tucson. The applicant has been recognized for her work ethic and accomplishments. She was offered a grant from a local community college and was able to finish 10 semester hours of college. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided 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) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided 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; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance 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. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant also requests reinstatement of her GI Bill benefit, addition of her campaign ribbons and the authorization for her claim for loss of personal property. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant requests addition of her campaign ribbons and the authorization for her claim for loss of personal property. However, the applicant's requested changes do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends she was subject to unfair and prejudicial discharge proceedings, which included her biased leadership and a discreditable JAG. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. The applicant contends that she was harrased and discriminated by members of her chain of command; however, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends she suffered from PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that she had good service, which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200006285 1