1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 October 2015 b. Date Received: 30 October 2015 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to his narrative reason for discharge and a change to his reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge was improper and warrants an upgrade. He contends that based on the evidence he submitted his narrative reason for discharge is in error and should be amended from pattern of misconduct to an appropriate separation narrative. He also believes his official military record should be expunged of any reference, indicating he was discharged from the military under AR 635-200, para 14-12c(2), misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs and from any other record. The applicant along with his Veterans Service Representative contend/believe that the medical profile the applicant was issued played a huge role in his Article 15 which subsequently resulted in his separation from the US Army. After reading all the profiles, counseling statements, sworn statements, and Article 15 packet/separation packet, it is believed that the applicant's leadership did not believe he had a medical issue. It appeared as if the platoon sergeant had a vendetta towards the applicant, after his first alleged misconduct and was determined to kick him out of the military. It is believed that despite the applicant's prior faithful service with no documented periods of misconduct, he was separated under Chapter 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. It is not understood, why at a minimum the applicant was not transferred to another unit as required by AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16c. Clearly he did not have these same patterns of misconduct prior to these incidents while under different leadership, as demonstrated by his prior commander and substantial awards. It is believed that the applicant was a creditable asset to the US Army and would have operated differently under different leadership if given the opportunity. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case files, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. AHLTA notes indicate applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depression while on active duty. There is no record of any FAP or ASAP involvement. AHLTA notes document that he felt command was not supportive of him with regard to his problem with shin splints, stating they made him do PT in spite of having a profile. VA records indicate applicant is 70% service connected for Neurosis. VA Problem List indicates he has been diagnosed with the following Behavioral Health diagnoses: PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Abuse. Based on the available information, the applicant has a Behavioral Health diagnosis, PTSD, which is mitigating for some of his offenses. As PTSD is associated with oppositional behavior and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between his PTSD and the offenses of being disrespectful towards NCOs and failing to obey orders given to him by NCOs. PTSD is not mitigating for the offense of making a false official statement to a commissioned officer In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a change to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer; Being disrespectful towards noncommissioned officers on multiple occasions; Failing to obey orders give to him by a noncommissioned officer on multiple occasions; and Making a false official statement to a commissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 September 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 January 2011 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (20 May 2012 to 20 February 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 July 2013, for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer on 20 June 2013 and disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer on 30 April 2013 and 13 June 2013. He was disrespectful in deportment towards a senior noncommissioned officer on 30 April 2013 and 13 June 2013. He was disrespectful in deportment towards two junior noncommissioned officers on 20 June 2013, and with intent to deceive made a false official statement to a commissioned officer on 12 June 2013. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $443 pay, and 14 days extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 May 2013, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis III for shin splints per the applicant. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. Mini substance use assessment was completed during interview, per the applicant's report no issues or concerns were identified. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative chapter 14-12b. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Veterans Services Representative cover letter; enlisted records brief, event time-line; individual sick slips/physical profiles; display patient appointments; developmental counseling forms; Article 15 record; sworn statements; separation memorandums and records; installation order to not to reenter memorandum; no derogatory information memorandum; trial defense services office closure memorandum; awards and decorations; memorandum from former company commander; date calculations; report of medical history; certification of records letter from NPRC; and DD Form 214 for period of service under review. 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 14-12b 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. 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, and pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for discharge and the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was 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 on Active Duty. Further, the appropriate SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for a pattern of misconduct is "JKA" and the RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant along with his Veterans Service Representative seeks relief contending that the medical profile the applicant was issued played a huge role in his Article 15 which subsequently resulted in his separation from the US Army. It is believed that the applicant's leadership did not believe he had a medical issue. It appeared as if the platoon sergeant had a vendetta towards him, after his first alleged misconduct and was determined to kick him out of the military. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the evidence submitted by the applicant (i.e., developmental counseling form, dated 10 May 2013), shows that the applicant was being counseled for the month of April 2013, and it was noted by the team leader, that he was concerned with the applicant's run times and road marching abilities due to him having been on an extended profile for shin splints. Other evidence submitted by the applicant shows that he was issued a Temporary Physical Profile, dated 22 April 2013 with an expiration date of 13 May 2013, which indicated no ruck marching. On 26 April 2013, the applicant was counseled for failing to perform to standard as he fell out of a platoon road march. It was noted that this was his second fallout in two days. Additional, evidence shows separation action was initiated against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer; being disrespectful towards noncommissioned officers on multiple occasions; failing to obey orders given to him by a noncommissioned officer on multiple occasions; and making a false official statement to a commissioned officer. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non- judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 17 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a change to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Secretarial Reviewing Authority: While the Board recommended partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the narrative reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions); the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority (SRA), reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the Board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The SRA found there is sufficient evidence to grant additional relief and directed that the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected by issuing a new DD Form 214 showing the characterization of service as Honorable. Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150017839 1