1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 November 2015 b. Date Received: 30 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, that he was a good Soldier who served honorably for over five years and received a lot of medals, to include the Good Conduct Medal, but had issues with his wife. The applicant states that things went bad with his home life, but as for his Army life, everything went well. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed with clinical encounters from July 2006 thru October 2011. Clinical notes reviewed from December 2006 thru November 2012. Radiology reports reviewed from September 2006 thru November 2011 (multiple x-rays, MRIs, and others; CT scan head without contrast (10 August 2009) was normal). Laboratory results reviewed from July 2006 thru August 2011 (cholesterol 219). Behavioral health (BH) post deployment screening on 14 July 2008 with 'serious sleeping problems thru deployment; did not want medication at this time." A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Administration records notes 70 problems (13 VA entered) including PTSD, bipolar disorder, cannabis dependence, amphetamine abuse, drug induced paranoia or hallucinatory states, neck and low back pain, and others. The Veterans Affairs has service-connected him at 90 percent overall. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 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: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-5, Section II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was convicted of Assault to the Fourth Degree and Harassment (Domestic Violence) on 19 July 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 January 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 5 years, 4 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 July 2006 to 9 January 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy, SWA / Afghanistan (9 May 2007 to 10 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action Forms, dated 7 February 2011 and 21 June 2011, reflects the applicant's duty status changed from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined Civilian Authorities (CCA)," effective 4 February 2011, from "CCA" to "PDY," effective 18 June 2011. CG Article 15, dated 27 October 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on three occasions (18, 19, and 21 October 2011). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $455 pay, extra duty for 14 days, and an oral reprimand. Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 23 November 2011, reflects the suspension of punishment of reduction to E-3, imposed on 27 October 201, was vacated based on the applicant's failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 28 October 2011 and 2 November 2011, and disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 2 November 2011. Court documents from the Superior Court of the State of Washington reference his plea of guilty to the charges of assault in the fourth degree and harassment. Sentence consisted of 365 days in jail with 359 days suspended. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 134 days (Confinement Civilian Authorities, 4 February to 17 June 2011) / released upon completion of sentence j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 April 2010, reflects the applicant's evaluation indicated the applicant carried the diagnosis IAW DSM IV: Conduct disorder ADHD by history, adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, and alcohol abuse. Report of Medical History, dated 5 August 2011, reflects the applicant indicated that he had been receiving behavioral health treatment for the past three years for depression, PTSD, and anxiety problems. The medical examiner notes date of May 2008. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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 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. 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 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. The applicant contends that he was a good Soldier who served honorably for over five years and received multiple awards. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant a characterization of service of honorable at the time of discharge as shown by his conviction in civilian court and by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It should be noted, by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (civil conviction). 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 applicant contends that he was having marital problems, which ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Evidence in the record shows the applicant was diagnosed IAW DSM IV: Conduct disorder ADHD by history, adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, and alcohol abuse. However, the record 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 processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 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 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 AR20160000720 1