1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 January 2016 b. Date Received: 4 January 2016 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 effect, since his discharge, he reentered the Army National Guard. He was in from 22 February 2007 through 22 February 2008 and was injured in a 30 day train up prior to deployment to Iraq. Though he did not deploy in country, he has received an Operation Iraqi Freedom Line of Duty investigation. He is 100 percent permanently disabled through the VA. He believes he has shown through more service and hard work that he should receive an upgrade. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, and AHLTA and VA electronic medical records reviewed. The applicant was diagnosed with Opioid Abuse and anxiety while in the military. VA has found him to be 100 percent service connected for Anxiety Disorder. One VA note mentioned diagnosis of non-military PTSD due to his difficult childhood. This diagnosis is not listed on his VA Problem List. Based on the information currently available, there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions for the offenses leading to his discharge from the military. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 January 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a CG Article 15 on 24 April 2002 for failure to report; received a FG Article 15 on 6 January 2003 for disrespect toward an NCO; and, received numerous counseling statements displaying a pattern of misconduct. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 January 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 14 January 2003, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 January 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 January 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23/ GED / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 6 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 15 March 1996 to 27 August 1996 / NA IADT, 28 July 1996 to 7 November 1996 / HD ARNG, 8 November 1996 to 10 January 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 24 April 2002, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (12 April 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $343 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 December 2002, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 3 January 2003, for disrespectful language toward an NCO (25 November 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $764 pay per months for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. On 28 January 2003, the imposing officer vacated the suspended portion of the punishment consisting of a reduction to E-2. The vacation was based on the applicant failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 3 January 2003. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for lack of military bearing; verbal threat of a commissioned officer; failure to report; missed movement; failure to be at appointed place of duty at specified time; failure to obey a lawful order; and, disrespect of an NCO. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 26 November 2002, reflects the applicant reported in block 17 having anxiety and received counseling for having homicide intentions. The last page, which contains the examining physician's notes, is not contained within the file. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant rejoined the Army National Guard. 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), 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." 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 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. 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 be retained on active duty. The applicant contends he rejoined the military and had good service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends he received a Line of Duty injury during a subsequent period of service and now is rated 100 percent disabled by the VA. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 10 March 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 AR20160000694 1