1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 April 2015 b. Date Received: 11 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his only option was to be discharged because he felt being cornered as he was a private and singled out. His discharge was due to lacking knowledge in operating a piece of equipment he was not trained to operate. Although he was disrespectful and made negative statements, he did not mean it. His squad leader refused to listen or acknowledge his request for assistance with the equipment he could not operate. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses (disrespectful towards NCOs, wrongfully used reproachful words, and willfully destroyed gov't property). The active duty electronic medical records were reviewed and revealed a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. The behavioral health condition was not a mitigating factor for misconduct that led to the separation action of the respondent from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 November 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was disrespectful towards NCOs, wrongfully used reproachful words, and willfully destroyed an M1120A4 truck, load handling system windshield, of a value of $500 or less (28 August 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, October 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 23 March 2010 / 4 years and 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-1 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 7 months, and 17 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement for punching and shattering the window of a vehicle causing it to be non-mission capable. FG Article 15, dated 5 October 2010, for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on two separate occasions, willfully damaging government property on 28 August 2010, and wrongfully using reproachful words toward an NCO on 28 August 2010. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 September 2010, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 6 April 2015, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable. The applicant’s record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant committed discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were 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 he should have been retained. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because his discharge was due to lacking knowledge in operating a piece of equipment he was not trained to operate, he was disrespectful and made negative statements which he did not mean it, and his squad leader refused to listen or acknowledge his request for assistance with the equipment he could not operate. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 3 August 2016, 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: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008390 4