1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2016 b. Date Received: 19 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent and in effect, his discharge was based on horse-playing with other Soldiers, when they accidentally shot out the windshield of a government tractor with a BB gun. The applicant contends that he was the only Soldier punished for the incident because he was the one in possession of the BB gun and he had a history of being in trouble. The applicant further contends that he was an outstanding Soldier, who served a combat tour and risked his life for his country. An upgrade would help him obtain what he rightfully deserves. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had several AHLTA mental-health diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions, Depression, and Insomnia. He had at least five theater visits for depression of insomnia in 2005 and had medications to help with depressive symptoms and insomnia. At the time of his depression in 2005, he viewed it, as did the therapist, and as related to his fiancée becoming pregnant and being sent home during the deployment. The list of PTSD symptoms is without precedent in the available AHLTA notes, including the notes from the Theater Clinic. The social worker did NOT diagnosis PTSD based on the applicant's description. The JLV showed one VA visit when he was told he was not eligible for services based on the character of his discharge; however, this does not include C&P claims, per that JLV VA note. Whatever the applicant's mental-health status, he had numerous instances of counseling, including misuse of a government credit, lying about its misuse, having an air rifle in his room contrary to regulations that have no obvious connection to his behavioral health problems or insomnia. His pre-discharge mental status exam did NOT seem to address PTSD; however, in August 2006 for his pre-discharge medical exam, he denied any behavioral health symptoms. He had profile of 111111 at that time. His misconduct is not mitigated by mental health and he is NOT resting his case on mental-health claims at this time. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a partial upgrade to the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations. (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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 23 October 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 October 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a Summarized Article 15 for three specifications of violating Article 86; received a FG Article 15 for three specifications of violating Article 92, one specification of violating Article 107, and one specification of violating Article 134; received one vacation of his suspended punishment for violating Article 92; received a FG Article 15 for one specification of violating Article 92, one specification of violating Article 107, one specification of violating Article 108, and one specification of violating Article 86; and, after offering him numerous chances to rehabilitate himself and numerous counseling sessions, explaining what needed to be done, he refused to change his behavior, and continued to make poor decisions. The pattern of misconduct that he demonstrated greatly affected the combat readiness of his unit. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 October 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 3 October 2006 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 October 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 July 2002 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25B10, Information Systems Operator-Analyst / 4 years, 2 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait and Iraq (15 December 2004 to 14 December 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 26 April 2006, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions (13 and 16 February 2006 and 24 April 2006). The punishment consisted of 7 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 7 July 2006, for failing to obey a lawful regulation on two separate occasions, by using his government travel card for personal expenses (between 8 March and 24 June 2006), failing to fasten his seatbelt while driving (13 June 2006); failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (1 June 2006); being dereliction in the performance of his duties (21 June 2006); making a false official statement (26 June 2006); and being indebted to a bank (11 May 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $713 pay per month for two months (suspended), 30 days of extra duty and restriction, and a written reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 31 August 2006, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for an administrative separation. Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, dated 21 August 2006, vacated the suspended punishment of forfeiture of $713 pay per month for two months that was imposed on 7 July 2006, due to failing to obey a regulation (11 August 2006). FG Article 15, dated 29 September 2006, for failing to obey a regulation (11 August 2006), damaging a government vehicle (11 August 2006), making a false official statement (23 August 2006), and being AWOL (18 September 2006 until 19 September 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 days (AWOL, 26 September 2006 to 27 September 2006) / returned to unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Assessment, dated 24 August 2006, reflects the healthcare provided noted situational depression 2004. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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, paragraph 14-12b, 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. 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." "Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service 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 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues with his application were carefully reviewed. The record further 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 have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because the incident that led to his discharge involved other Soldiers, but he was the only one punished. However, 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that other Soldiers involved in the same offense of damaging a government property were not punished. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to these incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Although the applicant did not raise his behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade would help him obtain what he rightfully deserves, perhaps referring to veterans' benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a partial upgrade to the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change to SPD code / Change RE to 3 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 AR20160002171 1