DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMR-RBA 24 May 2022 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings For , AR20210005524 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings in which the Board recommended denial of the applicant’s request. 2. I have reviewed the evidence presented, findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant’s DD form 214 for the period ending 20061206 with the following changes: Item 24 (Character of Service) – “Under Honorable Conditions (General) Item 25 (Separation Authority) – “AR 635-200, CH 15”; Item 26 (Separation Code) – “JFF”, and; Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – “Secretarial Authority.” No further changes are directed. 3. Request that the corrections be completed not later than 23 October 2022. Further request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of this decision and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 05/24/2022 Encl CF: ( ) OMPF Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (RB) Printed on Recycled Paper ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210005524 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to: * upgrade her characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions * change item 26 (Separation Code) * change item 27 (Reentry Code) * change item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Attorney Agreement, Brief, and Statement * Applicant Affidavit * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) and Supporting Documents * DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) * DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) * Memorandum, subject: Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial [Applicant] * DD Form 214, for the period ending 6 December 2006 * Application and Supporting Documents to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Records * Three Letters of Support * Memorandum, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) * Memorandum, subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment * Statement by Applicant’s Psychologist FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 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. Counsel states the applicant served in the Regular Army (RA) from 25 October 1988 to 21 June 1990. She was sexually harassed and assaulted by fellow service members on multiple occasions. When she reported the abuse, she was dismissed and ignored. Immediately following a severe incident of harassment, she went absent without leave (AWOL) out of fear for her safety. Her experiences of sexual trauma and her resultant PTSD are directly connected to the conduct that resulted in her other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Other than going AWOL, out of fear, she had no other infractions during her service. a. She was sexually assaulted by fellow service members and was stalked and unfairly punished and harassed by her superior. Hours before she went AWOL, her superior showed her a drawing of a penis with his name labeled on it entering a vagina with her name labeled. She spent 16 years hiding in fear that he would find her. Since her time in the military, she has experienced alcohol dependency, repeated nightmares, severe anxiety, shame and paranoia, and an inability to develop romantic relationships. b. She was also sexually assaulted by an unknown man on the military base when she was groped in her sleep while recovering from an injury during a training exercise. She had severe reaction to an insect bite sustained during field training. She reported the incident to a sergeant who did not believe her and thought she was dreaming. c. In January 1990, she was sent to Germany to assist in training. She was stalked by her supervisor. Despite these circumstances, she performed her job well. Upon return and in fear of her safety, she began drinking alone in her room. She discovered her vehicle had been vandalized and assumed it was a threat from her superior, so she left that evening in fear for her safety and was AWOL for 2 weeks. Upon return, her rank was downgraded. d. In June 1990, she was working in the kitchen when her supervisor called her over. He showed her the drawing of a penis with his name on it and vagina with her name on it. She was terrified and had no choice but to leave. She was AWOL for 16 years. She was apprehended by civilian authorities in 2006 and was encouraged to accept an under other than honorable conditions discharge. She was diagnosed with PTSD in 2007. 3. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 1988. b. On 25 October 2006, she returned from an AWOL status to Fort Hamilton, NY. Her Report of Return of Absentee shows she was AWOL from 21 June 1990 and was dropped from rolls on 21 July 1990. c. On 30 October 2006, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Specifically, her Charge Sheet indicates she was charged with one specification of being AWOL from 21 June 1990 to 25 October 2006. d. On 30 October 2006, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial in accordance with Chapter 10 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations for the charges preferred against her under the UCMJ. She acknowledged: * she was guilty of one of more of the charges, or lesser included offenses * she did not desire further rehabilitation and had no desire to perform further military service * if her request was accepted, she may be discharged under conditions other than honorable * she would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, may be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law * she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge e. On 6 December 2006, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 1 year, 9 months, and 8 days of active service. It also shows she was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon. f. She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge. On 20 April 2011, the ADRB denied her request. g. On 27 July 2021, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command responded to a request for sanitized copy of information from U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. A search of the Army criminal file indexes utilizing the information provided revealed no records pertaining to applicant. CID advised that records at this center are Criminal Investigative and Military Police Reports and are indexed by personal identifiers such as names, social security numbers, dates and places of birth and other pertinent data to enable the positive identification of individuals. 4. The applicant provides: a. Three letters of support, which state she is active in her community through programs and schools. b. Her VA medical records, which show her appointments and treatment history. c. A statement from her psychologist, which shows she received mental health services through her. d. A statement from her nurse, which shows she received medical treatment. e. A memorandum from the Secretary of Defense, which 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 applicant's service. f. A memorandum from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, which emphasizes the intent of the Secretary of Defense’s memorandum (above). g. A memorandum from the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which issued clarifying guidance when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed 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 that misconduct which led to the discharge. 6. By regulation, a Soldier who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which under the UCMJ, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 7. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 8. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. Documentation reviewed includes the application and supporting documentation and her military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), and civilian medical documentation were also reviewed. No hard copy military medical records were provided for review. a. The supporting documentation included a VA letter, dated 25 June 2009 noting, “We have provided services for [applicant] for post-traumatic stress reactions developed as a result of military service…she is also being treated by a psychiatrist for medication management to address her symptoms.” A VA Medical Center clinical note, dated 11 September 2017 noted, “AWOL two times after the first event, went to Walter Reed for anxiety, hospitalized in Dayton, Ohio etoh treatment x1 month – punished with article 15. Was in kitchen, SGT…showed pictures of penis and vagina with her name and his name on it. She then went to the chaplain, told him about it. He was dismissive of complaints…She went AWOL x16 years because no assistance.” The psychiatrist diagnosed her with “PTSD/[Military Sexual Trauma (MST)], etoh abuse remitted fully.” b. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) did not indicate any behavioral health notes nor any entries on the problem list. The VA electronic medical record, JLV, did not indicate any service connected disabilities. A Psychiatry Note, dated 15 April 2009 indicated, “52 year old PR mother of 2, previous psych hx of bipolar disorder, PTSD/MST, insomnia, coming to scheduled f/u appointment.” The psychiatrist diagnosed her with Bipolar II, most recent episode depressed, PTSD, Cluster B traits. The Problem List included Alcohol Dependence - Remission (30 August 2011); Bipolar Depressed (30 August 2011); Personality Disorder not otherwise specified (26 July 2011); PTSD (26 July 2011); Borderline Personality (25 October 2007); Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Hypomanic (MST) (03 October 2007); and PTSD (11 September 2007). c. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the ARBA psychologist that the applicant has mitigating behavioral health conditions, PTSD/MST. As there is an association between PTSD/MST and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between applicant’s symptoms and her extensive AWOL episode from her unit. Chronological review of her military career indicates a dramatic change in the applicant’s motivation, temperament and level of instability occurred following her MSTs. Such a radical change in behavior is consistent with the behavioral changes seen in Soldiers who experience multiple MST events and develop PTSD in a noncombat military environment. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense 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, and the reason for her separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA psychologist. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding her misconduct being mitigated by PTSD/MST; however, based on the extraordinary length of the period she was AWOL, the Board found relief would not be appropriate in this case. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation and the reason for her separation were not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X 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. 11/30/2021 X CHAIRPERSON 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, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) states a Soldier who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which under the UCMJ, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. 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 applicant's service. 4. 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; TBI; sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed 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 that misconduct which led to the discharge. 5. 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. 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. 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 based on 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//