1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 October 2015 b. Date Received: 28 October 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) discharge. However, the evidence of record shows the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions discharge) at the time of separation. Therefore, the applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. 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, he was discharged on a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is absolutely ridiculous, disrespectful, unprofessional, and inconsiderate due to his physical abilities at the time and his affection for the Army. He has a 90 percent VA rating and a 100 percent social security rating due to malpractice and disobeying his profile. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Depression while in the military. He screened negative for PTSD and TBI. Review of the VA record indicates the applicant is 50 percent service connected for PTSD. He has also been found disabled by the Social Security Administration. Per the Board's Medical Officer, he has a Behavioral Health condition (PTSD) which is mitigating for some, but not all, of his offenses. He was separated from the Army for the offenses of spousal abuse, simple assault, battery, failure to report for extra duty and failure to report for formation. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the offenses of Failure to Report for extra duty and Failure to Report for formation. PTSD is not mitigating for the offenses of spousal abuse, simple assault and battery. Both the electronic military and VA medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 2017, 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: 14 July 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: charged with spouse abuse and simple assault consummated by battery (16 January 2010 and 15 April 2010); failed to report for extra duty (20 May 2010); and, failed to report for formation (21 May 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 June 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 June 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 October 2009 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 6 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 January 2008 to 23 October 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Iraq (3 October 2009 to 6 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 16 January 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for spouse abuse, civilian female victim, assault consummated by battery, damage to private property, on post. Military Police Report, dated 16 April 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for spouse abuse, female civilian, simple assault consummated by battery, spouse abuse, military male victim, on post. FG Article 15, dated 19 May 2010, for assaulting Ms. A.G., x2 by grabbing her by the arm and throwing her on the bed (16 January 2010) and throwing her to the couch and putting his hands over her mouth and throat (16 January 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $906 pay for two months (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant received a negative counseling statement for simple assault consummated by battery and spouse abuse. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Compensation Decision letter, dated 11 April 2012, reflects the applicant was assigned a 50 percent service connected disabled rating for PTSD with depression and anxiety. Report of Medical Examination, undated, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, DD Form 214; birth certificate; Orders A-10-929206; Orders 52-3364; VA documents; Martin Army Community Hospital documents; two physical profiles; cover page; Developmental Counseling Form; US Senate Privacy Act Consent Form; formal complaint letter; US Senator letter with associated documents; Social Security Administration letter; Orange Park Medical Center documents; and Enlisted Record Brief. 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 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions discharge). However, the evidence of record shows the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions discharge) at the time of separation. Therefore, the applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. 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 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was discharged on a general under honorable conditions is absolutely ridiculous, disrespectful, unprofessional, and inconsiderate due to his physical abilities at the time and his affection for the Army. 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 these contentions. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support theses contention that he was unjustly discharged. 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 applicant further contends, he has a 90 percent VA rating and a 100 percent social security rating due to malpractice and disobeying his profile. The applicant submitted a VA rating decision document and a Social Security letter with his application; however, neither of these documents annotated the specific disability rating from each agency. 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 15 February 2017, 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: 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 AR20150017963 4