1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 February 2016 b. Date Received: 22 February 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, his discharge was the result of poor leadership. He contends he served eight years with not a single issue. He worked a lot with MWR as well as with the local communities as a volunteer firefighter/first response. He took as many military courses and training as he could. Earned awards for his military service and was extremely proud of all that he had accomplished during his first eight years. During his last year he had questioned his leadership and was given counseling's and Article's 15 and eventually discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. In November 2013, his company was going through the NPC gas chamber, two weeks after he was hospitalized twice for chest and heart problems. One of which he landed in the ICU. He contends he followed orders entering the chamber, however after he took off his mask as ordered his heart started to race, fearing for his health and safety he ran out of the chamber. A few minutes later his leadership ordered him to go back in saying he was cleared by battalion doctors but not by his cardiologist who later wrote him a note stating he should not have been in the chamber. He was given an Article 15 which resulted in him being reduced to PFC. A few months later he was put under new leadership who did not know him but only what the former leadership told them. In return they did not care that he had nine years' of service and experience but instead had the mindset that he was not a good Soldier even though his prior year's record showed he was an outstanding Soldier. So in return he was written up every day for two weeks to show a pattern of misconduct and discharge six months prior to the end of his contract. He appealed the decision however the board members of the same unit denied his appeal. He believes he served honorably and faithfully for the Army and earned an honorable discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's behavioral health conditions did not mitigate his misconduct. The JLV reflects the applicant as having a rating of 60 percent service-connected disabled by the VA, problem list diagnoses that include Major Depressive Disorder. He has other depression diagnoses in his VA outpatient visits. He does not have a PTSD or TBI diagnosis. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 July 2017, and by a 4-1 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: 12 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disobeying an order from a commissioned officer and having failed to report to his appointed place of duty on diver's occasions (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 October 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 17 December 2014, the administrative separation board after carefully considering the evidence before it, found that the allegation against the applicant of disobeying an order from a commissioned officer and failing to report to his appointed place of duty on diver's occasions were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board recommended the applicant be separated from active duty with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 January 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 October 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 9 years, 4 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 September 2005 to 18 June 2007 / HD RA, 19 June 2007 to 8 October 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, Alaska, SWA / Iraq (3 September 2007 to 9 November 2008 and 31 January 2011 to 6 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, ICM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-4 g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 January 2013, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 24 October 2012 and 14 November 2012. The punishment consisted of 5 days extra duty. CG Article 15, dated 15 January 2014, for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer on 12 December 2013. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $474 pay (suspended), and 14 days extra duty. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 30 May 2014, vacated the suspension of $474 pay imposed on 15 January 2014. The vacation was based on the applicant having disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 28 April 2014. CG Article 15, dated 17 September 2014, for failure to go at the time prescribe to his appointed place of duty on 12 August 2014 and 14 August 2014, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 19 August 2014, and being derelict in the performance of his duties on 15 August 2014. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $400 pay (suspended), 14 days extra duty, and oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 August 2014, shows the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative/board proceedings. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Record documents submitted by the applicant, which were created on 2 December 2014, shows the applicant had problems with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; enlisted record brief; stars and stripes article; DD Form 2187; verification of military experience and training; list of training and courses during service; certificates of awards/medal (i.e., certificates of achievements, ARCOM, AAM); recommendation for award of ARCOM and ARCOM w/1OLC; DD Form 256A; medical record excerpts October and November 2013 (10 pages); and basic training graduation photo. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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. 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 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 seeks relief contending, his discharge was the result of poor leadership. He contends he served eight years with not a single issue. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 these issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was the result of poor leadership. In fact, the applicant's three Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. 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. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. 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 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 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 19 July 2017, and by a 4-1 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160004451 1