1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 February 2022 b. Date Received: 2 February 2022 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant experienced sexual harassment from Soldiers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and experienced the applicant's first sexual assault. The applicant was confused and angry and tried to confide in peers. A short time after that, the applicant was assaulted by an NCO in the company. The applicant felt like nobody had the applicant's back, and the applicant was labeled a troublemaker. The applicant had a few trusted peers, and NCOs to confide in about it, but with the stigma of reporting, and after rumors began to spread throughout the company, the applicant just shut down about it. The applicant began to visit the chaplain and attended a few trips to try to mentally heal. Shortly after the applicant asked the command to be referred to behavioral health. The applicant was once again stigmatized by individuals and then blamed for the assaults. The applicant laid low and kept to self to try to repair people's perceptions of the applicant. The applicant was assaulted in the applicant's barracks room shortly after, and the applicant didn't even bother saying anything. The applicant just blamed self. The applicant's pride was lost, morale was low, and the applicant slowly began to spiral emotionally. Despite what happened to the applicant, the applicant still showed up to work on time and did the job well. The applicant was a private, but the applicant led the team on several successful missions, shared knowledge with peers, and took time to train other teams to achieve the same success as the applicant's team. The applicant hopes to further the applicant's education and experiences by using the GI Bill. The applicant received 50 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PTSD due to Sexual Assault/Harassment (MST) the applicant suffered. The applicant does not regret time served in the Army, nor does the applicant blame the command for separating the applicant because the applicant made some mistakes. The applicant does feel an upgrade is deserved because if not for the MST, the applicant would have thrived and the applicant believes the applicant's attackers stole that chance from the applicant and never had a fair chance. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement (see incidents statement) provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST experience mitigating the applicant's misconduct of breaking curfew, underage drinking and disrespect to an NCO. 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 separation code to JFF. The Board determined the current reentry eligibility (RE) was proper and equitable based on the applicant's medical diagnosis and voted not to change it. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2017 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: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 September 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / High School Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) The applicant states on the DD Form 293 to have received three Articles 15 for breaking curfew, underage drinking, and disrespect to an NCO. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the Articles 15. (2) Orders 229-0004, 17 August 2017, shows the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 29 August 2017 from the Regular Army. (3) The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief, 21 September 2017, shows the applicant was reduced from E-2 to E-1 effective 16 August 2016. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: (a) Medical document, 2 March 2022, showing the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic, and major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe without psychotic features. The applicant has been previously diagnosed with PTSD through the VA. (b) VA disability rating decision, 26 August 2022, showing the applicant's 50 percent disability rating increased to 70 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; applicant's incidents; two third party statements; medical document; two VA Summary of Benefits; VA Rating Decision; VA Benefits Letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant started school at Grand Canyon University, in hopes of getting the applicant's degree in social work. The applicant attended a course to work as a home health aide and has been doing that the last few years. 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. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) and AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management) both require supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file. e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Paragraph 2-2 (Notice), stated commanders were to notify the soldier in writing of the following: (a) Provide the basis of the proposed separation, including the circumstances upon which the action was based, and a reference to the applicable regulatory separation provision. (b) The Soldier will be advised of the following rights: * whether the proposed separation could result in discharge, release from active duty to a Reserve Component, or release from custody and control of the Army * the least favorable characterization of service or description of separation he/she could receive * the type of discharge and character of service recommended by the initiating commander and that the intermediate commander(s) may recommend a less favorable type of discharge and characterization of service than that recommended by the initiating commander (c) Further advise the Soldier of the following rights: * consult with military or civilian counsel at their own expense * submit statements in their own behalf * obtain copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation * to a hearing before an administrative separation board under section III of this chapter if they had 6 or more years of total active and Reserve service on the date of initiation of recommendation for separation * waive their rights (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) 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. f. 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. g. 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: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) RE-3 Applies to: 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. (3) RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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. The applicant's AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days during which the applicant served 1 year, 4 months and 12 days in Korea. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the 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 not authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows 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) on 29 August 2017. c. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade is deserved because the applicant experienced sexual harassment from Soldiers and NCOs and was sexually assaulted on more than one occasion, was stigmatized by individuals, blamed for the assaults, and labeled a troublemaker. There was a stigma of reporting, and after rumors began to reach throughout the company, the applicant shut down about it. The applicant began to visit the chaplain, attended a few trips to try to heal mentally, and requested the command to be referred to behavioral health. The applicant provided two third party statements, one states while at a barbeque at the barracks, themself and other Soldiers went looking for the applicant when the applicant was gone too long, the applicant was found crying in the bathroom of another Soldier's room with the other Soldier's belt unbuckled. The second statement is from the applicant's former first sergeant while stationed in Korea. The statement states the applicant was assaulted in 2016 in the applicant's South Korea barracks room by Sergeant T__ who was thought to be a trusted team leader within the company. After the incident, the applicant was emotionally broken which led to a steep decline in performance. Due to the applicant being devastated and afraid, the applicant only shared the events of that night with a few people including the first sergeant. The aforementioned NCO was found guilty of sexual assault and dishonorably chaptered out of the military. The Army Review Board Agency requested sanitized information from the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division on 12 May 2023, however, a search of the Army criminal file indexes revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. d. The applicant states that as a private, the applicant led the team on successful missions, on several occasions, shared knowledge with peers and took time to train other teams to achieve the same success as the applicant's team. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. e. The applicant hopes to further the applicant's education and experiences by using 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 VA for further assistance. f. The applicant states to have received 50 percent disability from the VA for PTSD due to MST the applicant suffered. The applicant provided a medical document, 2 March 2022, that shows the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic, and major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe without psychotic features. VA disability rating decision, 26 August 2022, shows the applicant's 50 percent disability rating increased to 70 percent for PTSD. g. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede 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 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found MST occurred during military service. VA service connection for PTSD establishes it began or occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition, PTSD due to MST. As there is an association between PTSD/MST, avoidant behaviors and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD/MST and the applicant's offense of being disrespectful towards an NCO. The applicant also has other minor misconduct (breaking curfew and underage drinking) which occurred in the month before her MST. As per ARBA's policy of making the soldier who has suffered an MST experience whole, the minor offenses of underage drinking and breaking curfew are also mitigated by her MST experience and subsequent diagnosis of PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD due to MST experience outweighed the listed basis for separation for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention: The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade is deserved because the applicant experienced sexual harassment from Soldiers and NCOs and was sexually assaulted on more than one occasion, and stigmatized by individuals, blamed for the assaults, and labeled a troublemaker. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD due to MST experience mitigating the applicant's misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST experience mitigating the applicant's misconduct of breaking curfew, underage drinking and disrespect to an NCO. 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 separation code to JFF. The Board determined the current reentry eligibility (RE) was proper and equitable based on the applicant's medical diagnosis and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD due to MST experience mitigated the applicant's misconduct of breaking curfew, underage drinking and disrespect to NCO. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were inequitable. 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 RE code will not change, as the Board determine the current code is proper and equitable based on the applicant's medical diagnosis. 10. 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 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 AR20220001680 1