1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2016 b. Date Received: 19 May 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that two soldiers killed a 17 year old teenager off post. Soldiers G and B murdered a teenager, which made national news coverage. While this was going on in his battalion, there were Soldiers receiving upgraded discharges, even though they were all on drugs. One Soldier told the applicant, he was on cocaine for nine months and then laughed that the chain of command never knew. The chain of command put the applicant in charge of these five Soldiers, some of which received general discharges and others honorable discharges. Additionally, the first sergeant in charge of Alpha Company was moved to another battalion, after it was discovered she had the hand gun that the two Soldiers used to kill the teenager off post and did not turn it in for a week. Her reason was that her husband had unregistered weapons in their household and she did not want to get caught. The applicant was waiting for a response from his Congressman with regards to how bad his unit was. The applicant was the only one to be punished by his chain of command because of this incident. The truth of the matter is that he addressed this issue before hand and nothing had been done. The applicant questions why he was being punished after he had previously raised the issue. His battalion did not want to correct the minor issue and as a result it evolved into a major problem. The applicant states he has proof that his chain of command did not want to address the issues. Further, he had family problems and too many other problems to count. Additionally, he has addressed these issues with his local area political figures. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes 22 problems (all from DOD). No VA medical notes found. The Veterans Affairs has not service-connected the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 July 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 11 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 25 August 2011, the applicant was charged with violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 7 September 2010 until 3 August 2011. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 7 September 2011 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 29 September 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 September 2005 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 89B1P, Ammunition Specialist / 9 years, 3 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 July 2001 - 1 September 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (26 January - 15 July 2003; 22 January 2005 - 14 January 2006; 4 May 2007 - 25 July 2008; 26 July - 22 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-2, MUC, PUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: March 2005 - 29 February 2008, Fully Capable 1 March 2008 - 30 August 2010, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c(1). Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 7 September 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 8 October 2010; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 3 August 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 329 days (AWOL, 7 September 2010 - 2 August 2011) / Surrendered to Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Initial Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 22 April 2010, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with a Mood Disorder-NOS (Axis I). The evaluation also noted "R/O PTSD." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; extracts of his medical treatment records; congressional inquiry and allied documents; and, an Inspector General Action Request and allied documents. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar or worse offenses were not discharged or received honorable discharges. 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. Further, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. The applicant contends that he was discriminated by members of his chain of command and, he had family issues that mitigated his behavior. The applicant 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 7 July 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 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 AR20160009590 5