1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 24 May 2015 b. Date Received: 8 June 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the chain of command knew of his living situation and failed to educate him on the Army Regulation regarding wrongful cohabitation. His military record is scared due to this injustice. He desires to receive VA benefits he earned. 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. Electronic medical records revealed diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Bipolar II in January - February 2010 in response to 3 day hospitalization for suicide attempt. Applicant did not pursue follow care following diagnoses. Prior hospitalizations at ages 14 and 16 for possible Schizophrenia and/or ADHD per applicant. Mental Status Examinations March and July 2011 revealed no diagnoses and applicant was psychiatrically cleared. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 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: 23 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge: made two false official statements (24 May 2011); wrongfully endeavored to impede an investigation (between 1 April 2011 and 22 May 2011); wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife (between 7 January 2011 and 19 April 2011); wrongfully cohabitated with a woman not his wife (between 24 January 2011 and 19 April 2011); and, failed to repair (14 May 2011, 20 May 2011, 1 June 2011, and 27 July 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 July 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 30 July 2011 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 19 March 2008 / 3 years / extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government in support of a contingency operation. b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / GED / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer / 3 years, 5 months, and 5 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 December 2008 - 28 November 2011 and 10 June 2011-7 August 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, IACM-3CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, MUC g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 4 February 2010, reflects the applicant made a suicide attempt, on post. FG Article 15, dated 18 June 2011, for knowingly making a false official statement (24 May 2011), wrongfully endeavoring to impede an investigation by influencing the testimony of S.M, as a witness before an investigating officer, by communicating to the said S.M., that she should lie and say "you are just a friend and that I am just helping you with bills temporarily," or words to that effect (between 1 April 2011 and 22 May 2011); wrongfully have sexual intercourse with S.M., a woman not his wife on divers occasions (between 7 January 2011 and 19 April 2011); and, wrongfully cohabiting with a S.M., a woman not his wife (24 January 2011 and 19 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 pay for two months (suspended) and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 July 2011, reflects the applicant was fit for full duty, including deployment, could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong and met medical retention requirements. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being recommended for separation. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. Applicant-Provided Evidence: Online application, dated 24 May 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 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and document submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the chain of command knew of his living situation and failed to educate him on the Army Regulation regarding wrongful cohabitation. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that chain of command failed educate him on the regulation regarding wrongful cohabitation. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant desires to receive VA benefits he earned. 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 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 19 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/Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change 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 AR20150009863 4