1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 February 2016 b. Date Received: 14 March 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, he should have been medically discharged due to his PTSD and mental instability. The VA ordered that he not be placed in live fire situations, which his command did not adhere to, causing him increased mental instability and suicidal tendencies. His increased instability led to him not being able to perform his duties, which provoked him to compensate with the use of alcohol, as no medical help was rendered. His marriage failed because his commander would not allow him to contact his wife to attempt to reconcile his marriage. The State of Washington rescinded the "No Contact" order; however, his commander did not abide by it and the applicant was discharged. The applicant's command was informed multiple times that the applicant was not fit for duty, but placed him in these situations anyway. Since his discharge the applicant has been assigned a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD by the VA. The applicant requests his rank be reinstated to E-4. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's record showed six psychiatric hospitalizations. He does have a JLV rating of 100 percent service connected from the VA. Exact percentages by condition are unknown. In regard to mitigation, the applicant met criteria for invocation of the Policy of Liberal Consideration for PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, his severe family matters, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent VA disability PTSD diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant disobeyed CPT. J.L.S., by contacting Ms. N.A.B. (23 September 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 September 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 6 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 9 September 2008 to 23 September 2019 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (12 September 2009 to 24 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Municipal Court of the City of Tacoma, Pierce County, State of Washington, Domestic Violence No-Contact Order, dated 6 June 2011, indicates the applicant was "prohibited from entering or coming within 500 feet (distance) of the protected person(s)'s residence, school, workplace. In this case, the protected person was Ms. N.A.B. Two Personnel Action forms, dated 6 and 8 June 2011, reflect the applicant's duty status changed from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Civilian Confinement," effective 6 June 2011, and from "Civilian Confinement" to "PDY," effective 8 June 2011. Company Commander Memorandum, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, dated 6 June 2011, directing a 1,000 feet no-contact order regarding domestic assault with spouse (N.A.B.). CG Article 15, dated 27 February 2012, for having received a lawful command from CPT. J.L.S., a commissioned officer, "to refrain from having contact with N.A.B." (23 September 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. On 5 March 2012, the suspension of punishment of a reduction to E-3 was vacated for the new offense of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (29 February 2012). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, emergency command-directed evaluation, dated 29 February 2012, reflects the applicant stated made the comment about shooting himself while distressed, but that he would not harm himself and has reasons for living. He also stated he is not considering killing or harming another person. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2012, reflects no referral to ASAP was needed based on the results of the evaluation. The applicant was cleared for chapter separation per behavioral health status evaluation. Numerous counseling statements, dated between 6 May 2011 and 29 February 2012, for problems with alcohol, spousal difficulties, fighting with spouse, problems with stress from work and home, failure to meet financial obligations, being married but living in barracks, no contact order with wife, failure to follow no contact order, and an attempted suicide/suicide threat involving a personally owned weapon. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 day (Civilian confinement, 6 to 7 June 2011). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 October 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) adjust disorder with disturbance of emotions. The applicant denied experiencing any current suicidal or homicidal ideations with intent and plan, it was the provider's opinion that the applicant was at risk (or engaging in these behaviors when having to deal with stressful situations (e.g. financial stress, marital stress, unit stress, difficult interactions with chain of command). Recommend Command adhere to the duty limitations in the above evaluation as well as support the applicant in seeking Behavioral Health treatment. Command is encouraged to pursue a risk assessment and/or emergency Command Directed Evaluation if it is believed that the applicant's condition was deteriorating or if he expresses suicidal and/or homicidal ideations. Command was also encouraged to conduct regular checks to determine whether applicant required an increased level of supervision. VA Progress Notes, dated 4 June 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis 1) PTSD and (Axis III) TBI, alcohol abuse / dependence in brief remission, otherwise good health. VA Rating Decision letter, dated 6 August 2013, reflects the applicant was assigned a 100 percent disability rating for service-connected PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two character / support statements; Enlisted Record Brief; two developmental counseling forms; notification to separate memorandum; VA Rating Decision; mental health residential rehabilitation treatment program PTSD, Certificate of Merit; VA, substance abuse certificate of completion; DAV Certificate of Appreciation; ARCOM Certificate; DA Certificate of Service; letter, Director, Case Management Division and VA progress notes. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant completed the VA Residential Rehab Treatment Program, the PTSD Track earning him a certificate of Merit and Completion, three semesters of college, and joined the Student Veteran Organization while maintaining his sobriety. The applicant also received an award from the Disabled American Veterans and volunteers at the VA and the American Legion assisting disabled veterans. Lastly, he donates time helping operate a holiday function for kids that requires him to utilize and maintain privately owned military equipment. 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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. By the misconduct (minor infractions), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating either the command's action was erroneous or 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 should have been medically discharged due to his PTSD and mental instability. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant further contends, the VA ordered that he not be placed in live fire situations, which his command did not adhere to, causing him increased mental instability and suicidal tendencies. The evidence of record (support statement), the author stated that although deemed inappropriate by the VA for the applicant to be placed in live fire situations his command disregarded this order and placed him inappropriate positions without regard for his mental stability at that time. The record of evidence (DD Form 2807-1) shows that the applicant attempted suicide on two separate occasions February 2011 and December 2011. 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 applicant also contends, his increased instability led to him not being able to perform his duties, which provoked him to compensate with the use of alcohol as no medical help was rendered. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant additionally contends, his marriage failed because his commander would not allow him to contact his wife to attempt to reconcile his marriage. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his marriage failed based on his commander's no contact order. Furthermore, the applicant contends, the no contact order was rescinded, his commander did not abide by it and he was discharged from the Army. The no contact order was not intended for punishment. The order was an administrative action to ensure he did not breach Article 132 of the UCMJ. It was also intended to protect the applicant from further allegations concerning domestic assault or domestic violence while the order was in effect. Further, the applicant was discharged for disobeying his company commander's "No Contact" order in effect at the time he violated the order. The applicant admitted in counseling statement on 23 September 2011, he made threats against his spouse and her grandparents. Moreover, the applicant contends, his command was informed multiple times that he was not fit for duty, but placed him in these situations anyway. The record of evidence shows that Behavioral Health professionals instructed the applicant he had restricted access to all military weapons and zero access to any personally owned weapons, to include his personally owned weapons. The weapons restriction order issued by the unit commander, was never rescinded, and remains in effect at this time. In addition to the weapons restriction he was also instructed and lawfully restricted from consuming alcohol. Lastly, the applicant contends, the VA assigned him a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD. The applicant submitted a VA rating decision which shows he was granted a 100 percent disable rating for service connected PTSD. The applicant requests his rank be reinstated to E-4. The applicant was reduced in rank by a CG Article for disobeying his company commander and therefore, his rank to E-4 cannot be reinstated. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 26 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, his severe family matters, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent VA disability PTSD diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20160005871 2 Army Discharge Review Board Case Report and Directive AR20160005871 1