1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 November 2021 b. Date Received: 3 November 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during their service they attended several schools to sharpen their skillsets as a Soldier, not knowing that they were “favors” that led to sexual advances and eventually sexual harassment. When the subject was brought to their chain of command, including the platoon SGT and 1SG, the applicant quickly learned they were all friends and was not only giving a heads up to the Soldier but also covered for them. (1) The applicant was made aware by the Soldier who harassed them that they knew that they had opened up their mouth. Shortly after, horrible rumors ensued, and they no longer felt safe or protected. The applicant requested two conditional releases to go active duty, and both were denied. The third conditional release was finally approved; however, but due to their home life conditions they could not execute them. The applicant felt trapped, powerless, and felt they had no voice, and the concern was who would even believe them because they still needed help; they felt it was the applicant against their offender. Since they were not part of the end crowd, they did not matter, resulting in them giving up. The applicant contemplated suicide because in their mind the Army was their way out, all they needed, and the answer to all of their problems in which they were wrong. This led to the applicant requesting an early release. (2) Their experience in that unit was one that has scared them to this day. While writing this statement, the applicant felt both grief and anger; this is an experience that they wish they could forget. Having to fight to protect their name and people never truly knowing who they were is the worst part. They left the Army and never looked back and have only spoke about it now for the first time since 2014. (3) They were told that a general release under honorable conditions was only coded that way since they were discharged early but that it was still honorable. Now their characterization of service is negatively impacting their benefit eligibility, as a nurse and a single parent, purchasing their first home. They have truly come so far and they are requesting their request be honored. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 December 2014 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: 28 October 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10 Chemical Ops SP / 5 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: * ARNG, 16 February 2005 – 16 August 2006, UNC * IADT, 31 May – 13 August 2005 (Concurrent Service) * IADT, 11 January 2010 – 23 March 2010 (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) On 28 October 2009, the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army Reserve for 6 years as an E-3. The applicant promoted to specialist thereafter. (2) On 23 March 2010, shows the applicant completed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and was awarded their MOS, 74D1O Chemical Operations Specialist; they were released from active duty accordingly with a characterization of service as honorable. (3) Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 2 June 2011, provides the applicant completed training for 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist; they exceeded course standards, and they were rated as superior for written and oral communication, leadership skills, contribution to group work, and evaluation of student’s research ability. (4) On 16 December 2014, the applicant was issued separation orders with an effective date of 19 December 2014 from the USAR with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions). The orders are void of a narrative reason and/or whether this discharge was voluntary and/or involuntary. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge); Registered Nurse (RN) License; USAR Separation Orders. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is a Registered Nurse (RN) and a single parent of two children in the process of purchasing their first home. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and USAR enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) The possible characterizations include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry- level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determination in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time- honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. e. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. A review of the record provides administrative irregularity in the proper retention of records, specifically the AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. Although a copy of separation orders are present and show a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions), the orders show only the separation authority and are void of a narrative reason and whether the separation was voluntary and/or involuntary. Additionally, the publication date of the orders is only 3 days prior to the effective date of discharge. b. The applicant contends there was unwanted sexual advances and eventually sexual harassment from a Soldier; they told their platoon SGT and 1SG, the applicant was not supported and even made to feel worse because of the rumors that resulted. c. The available evidence provides the applicant reenlisted in the USAR as an E-3 and was promoted to E-4. They successfully completed initial active-duty training and awarded MOS 74D10. Approximately a year later, they completed training for 92Y10 (Unit Supply Specialist) and rated as exceeding course standards with superior ratings for written and oral communication, leadership skills, contribution to group work, and evaluation of student’s research ability. Based on the date of the effective date of discharge the applicant completed approximately 5 years and 2 months of their 6-year contractual obligation. d. Due to the absence of required records in the AMHRR and the lack of required information in the published separation orders, we are unable to identify the narrative reason for discharge according to Army Regulation 135-178. e. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impeded on the Board’s statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant’s petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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 applicant asserts sexual harassment, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant states that her self-asserted history of sexual harassment occurred while on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that no decision regarding medical mitigation can be made given the absence of a basis for separation. However, as applicant self-asserts sexual harassment, this self-assertion alone is sufficient for consideration by the board. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during their service they attended several schools to sharpen their skillsets as a Soldier, not knowing that they were “favors” that led to sexual advances and eventually sexual harassment. When the subject was brought to their chain of command, including the platoon SGT and 1SGT, the applicant quickly learned they were all friends and was not only given a heads up to the Soldier but also covered for them. They were told that a general release under honorable conditions was only coded that way since they were discharged early but that it was still honorable. Now their characterization of service is negatively impacting their benefit eligibility, as a nurse and a single parent, purchasing their first home. They have truly come so far, and they are requesting their request be honored. The Board considered this contention and 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. c. The Board determined that 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 based on the following reasons: 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, record of service, the frequency and nature of misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board was unable determine if there was evidence of in-service or BH conditions mitigating factors because the applicant’s official records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge and the applicant did not provide any evidence of the basis of the applicant’s separation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were 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 under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? (3) As the applicant was in the Army Reserves, there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. 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 AR20210017418 1