1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 November 2015 b. Date Received: 10 November 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 states, in effect, he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to received benefits that would make him a better person. The applicant seek relief contending, in effect, he has been awarded service connected disability of 100 percent for PTSD and that the issues leading to his discharge were the result of his PTSD. He contends he was not himself and he had insomnia and other symptoms that basically made it impossible for him to actually be an ideal Soldier. Evidence in the record shows the applicant had a prior records review on 27 April 2011. In a reconsideration records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 April 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 March 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having several domestic altercations which resulted in him being arrested; Violating his conditions of release on (24 March 2005) by attempting to contact his wife and being arrested that evening; Failing to report to work call x4 (20 May 2005, 11 June 2005, 2 August 2006, and 19 August 2006); Receiving unauthorized pay and allowances while not deployed to a combat zone; Failing to obey a lawful order by failing to stay in his quarters after being given quarters by a commissioned officer; Failing to have insurance on his POV, which he lied to his squad leader about (7 June 2005); Failing to report to accountability formation x6 10 June 2005, 8 July 2005, 20 July 2005, 27 July 2005, 3 August 2005, and 19 July 2006; Failing to report to physical training formation x2 (10 June 2005 and 15 June 2005); Failing to provide valid proof of insurance for his POV (26 July 2005); Losing accountability of his personally assigned weapon (11 April 2006); Having a physical altercation with PFC K (1 May 2006); Leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority (19 August 2006); and Receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for 4 specifications of Article 86, UCMJ, and 1 specification of Article 92, UCMJ (28 June 2005) (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 March 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 12 November 2002 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 15U10, CH-47 Helicopter Repairman / 4 years, 4 months, and 29 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Southwest Asia / Iraq (1 March 2004-16 February 2005 and 14 October 2005-2 October 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ICM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 30 June 2005, for violating a lawful general regulation by failing to maintain the proper amount of vehicle insurance on 20 May 2004 and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x4 (9 June 2005, 10 June 2005, 11 June 2005, and 15 June 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $361.00, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 25 March 2005 and 19 December 2006, for confinement for violation of conditions of his release, failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the appointed time on several occasions, attempting to defraud of the government through unauthorized pay and allowances, failure to follow proper sick call medical quarters procedures, driving without insurance, failing to follow prescribed regulations, revoking leave, pass privilege, and early return to theater of operation, failing to maintain accountability of his assigned weapon, disobeying a direct order from a noncommissioned officer, failing to follow standards and instruction, and notification of chapter proceedings General Sessions Court of Montgomery County, Tennessee documents making reference to a domestic abuse case. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 31 January 2007, which indicated the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293, dated 1 November 2015 and a copy of his Rating Decision Letter, dated 17 December 2013, from the Department of Veterans Affairs which shows the applicant has been awarded 100 percent service connected disability for PTSD. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None 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. 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, by implication provided the same guidance to the Service Discharge Review Boards whose decisions are reviewable by the Service Correction Boards. That memorandum provided PTSD or PTSD-related conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." However, the memorandum also states, "Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under 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 the 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 to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he has been awarded service connected disability of 100 percent for PTSD and that the issues leading to his discharge were the result of his PTSD. He contends he was not himself and he had insomnia and other symptoms that basically made it impossible for him to actually be an ideal Soldier. The independent document submitted by the applicant showing he has been awarded 100 percent service connected disability was noted; however, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge that would have warranted his separation through medical channels. 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 expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to received benefits that would make him a better person. However, 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 reconsideration records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 June 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 AR20150018906 5