1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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, the discharge from the Army was unjust. The applicant claims Specialist (SPC) M.B. was someone who the applicant called a friend and was a roommate. After a falling out, the applicant claims applicant cut all contact with SPC M.B., but days later, the applicant was accused of stealing from SPC M.B. Applicant claims everyone in the S-1 office tried to help the applicant but the call came from USASOC, SPC M.B.'s command, and the decision was made already. The applicant claims unit was about to deploy and the applicant was not selected to go, but would go to be away from SPC M.B. The applicant claims applicant deployed for six months with 7th Special Forces Group and while deployed requested assistance, but no one wanted to be involved. The applicant claims applicant was advised of a pending separation and the applicant would not be left with anything. The applicant was confused, lost, and felt hopeless, without any explanation except someone higher wanted the applicant out of the service. The applicant claims applicant tried to commit suicide twice in Afghanistan and once in the barracks room, after returning from deployment. The applicant claims applicant spoke with the Chaplain and was placed on suicide watch and Sergeant M. had to watch and escort the applicant around. The applicant claims applicant was denied the option to go to the hospital and only could see the medic at 7th Group. The applicant was rushed out of the service and the applicant believes it was based on race and the fact "they" were in a relationship. The applicant claims applicant did not stand a chance against the USASOC command because in the command's eyes, the applicant was another poor black female who did not deserve a second chance because the applicant hurt one of the command's special White Soldiers. The applicant claims applicant was trying to obtain better employment to care for family because the applicant was passed over for several jobs due to the DD Form 214. The applicant claims applicant did not go to the Department of Veterans Affairs because of the belief of not being entitled to benefits. The applicant claims applicant was able to find employment at AT&T as a Customer Service Representative from 2008 to 2017. The applicant claims applicant's medical care for Neuropsychologist and psychiatrist was paid by private insurance. The applicant has been employed with USPS since May 2017. The applicant claims applicant is also a Chief Shop Steward and the Safety coordinator for the Rural Craft. The applicant claims applicant is an active member of the VFW and a federally employed woman, has no criminal record; and never been charged or convicted of theft like the applicant was in the Army. The applicant claims applicant requests consideration to upgrade the discharge to honorable. The applicant claims an upgrade would allow better opportunities for employment and other veterans benefits. In a records review conducted on 12 May 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 April 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 January 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully took $1306.86 from Specialist M.B. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 March 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 April 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 May 2006 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 84 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 1 year, 11 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 March 2007 - 27 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCOM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Article139 Claim of Specialist M.B., dated 16 January 2008, reflects, the Article 139, UCMJ, claims submitted by SPC M.B. against the applicant was cognizable in the amount of $1,306.86, and the commander directed the applicant's pay be withheld and paid to SPC M.B. Report of Medical History, dated 13 February 2008, reflects the applicant stated "I've been depressed a lot now." The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: No (symbol) psychological/mental health issues. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for the act of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2008, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible and had the mental capacity to understand and could participate in the proceedings. The AXIS II was deferred, but likely Personality Disorder Traits - Antisocial. Letter from a licensed clinical social worker, dated 12 August 2021, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and had been receiving therapy off and on since August 2012. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; LSCW letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment; having no criminal record, participating in several different organizations; and, volunteering in the community. 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 14-12c prescribes 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. (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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 contends being unjustly discharged due to not committing the offense. The applicant was provided the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and present the case to the separation authority. The separtion authority decided separation was warranted. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The applicant provided medical documentation reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and had been receiving therapy off and on since August 2012. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 13 March 2008, which reflects the applicant was mentally responsible and had the mental capacity to understand and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE reflects the AXIS II diagnosis was deferred, but likely Personality Disorder Traits - Antisocial. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends racial discrimination by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the discrimination. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veteran's benefits. 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 applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends maintaining employment to include Federal employment; having no criminal record, participating in several different organizations; and, volunteering in the community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. 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. 9. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found Applicant's in service medical records reveal diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and PTSD that may mitigate the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant's in service medical records reveal diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and PTSD do not mitigate the applicant's fraudulent actions to wrongfully use another soldier's credit card as the basis of separation. There is no association between any of applicant's BH conditions and the basis for applicant's separation given that none of these conditions interfere with one's ability to differentiate between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, and determined the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and PTSD do not outweigh the unmitigated wrongful use of another soldier's credit card as the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being unjustly discharged due to not committing the offense. The Board considered this contention, however the Board determined that the weight of the evidence did not support a conclusion that this contention warranted any change to the applicant's discharge. (2) The applicant contends a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that none of applicant's medical conditions, including applicant's PTSD outweighed the unmitigated basis of applicant's separation. (3) The applicant contends racial discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention, however the Board found the weight of the evidence did not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veteran's benefits. The Board determined that 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. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated offense of stealing, and the discharge was proper and equitable. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change 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 AR20210002977 1