1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 August 2016 b. Date Received: 12 September 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 was diagnosed with PTSD in 2011 before the issues with his chain of command (CoC) began. The applicant contends that his CoC refused to let him go to the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) and prevented his medical board from taking place and being finalized. The applicant states that he previously submitted a request for and was granted an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) and he would now like to finish having his discharge upgraded to honorable. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review on 26 August 2015 and was granted an upgrade to his characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a mitigating behavioral health condition for some of the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed with clinical encounters from December 2007 thru October 2013. Clinical notes reviewed from December 2005 thru September 2012. Radiology results reviewed from November 2005 thru October 2012. Laboratory results reviewed from September 2005 to July 2013. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes 66 problems (six VA entered) including PTSD, major depressive disorder, personal history of TBI, gastroesophageal reflux, wrist and lower back pain. The Veterans Affairs may have service- connected the applicant at 30 percent for PTSD (unclear). In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 24 March 2017, and by a 4-1 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, severe family matters (i.e. drug abuse wife endangering the baby), and post service accomplishments (i.e. remarried and assumed responsibility for four step children, won custody of son, and started residential cleaning business), and as a result it is now inequitable. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to report to his place of duty on divers occasions; AWOL on two occasions (18 to 28 November 2011 and 16 December 2011 to 9 January 2012); and, disobeyed a commissioned officer, CPT M. (30 November 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 June 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 September 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35M10, HUMINT Collector / 5 years, 9 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 November 2007 to 2 January 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 October 2009 to 16 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 5 October 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (8 and 11 July 2011, 2 and 8 August 2011) and disobeying a lawful order (8 August 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), 21 days of extra duty, and 45 days restriction. Vacation of Suspension of FG Article 15, dated 22 November 2011, vacated the applicant's punishment imposed on 5 October 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 20 October 2011 x 2, 21 October 2011 and 28 October 2011. Record of Trial by Summary Court Martial, dated 7 May 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions (between 21 February 2011 and 9 February 2012) and disobeying a lawful order from CPT M (30 November 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $944 pay for one month. MACH TBI Clinic Fort Benning, GA, Memorandum, dated 19 July 2011, from Mr. W, PA, reflects the applicant was being treated in the MACH TBI Clinic and was on medications that could cause some early morning fatigue and wanted to bring awareness to the chain of command. Memorandum, dated 19 March 2013, reflects the applicant was disenrolled from the IDES program due to being found fit for duty. Defense Counsel Memorandum, dated 29 May 2013, from CPT S, reflects the applicant's separation packet was inadequate and he was unable to get an understanding of the case, therefore unable to advise the applicant. He states, he was concerned the command had not properly considered all the evidence regarding the applicant's mental and behavioral health that a proper mental health evaluation was not conducted, or that the command considered the applicant's entire situation. Letter from Ms. S, PHD, Licensed Psychologist, dated 28 June 2013, reflects the applicant had been seen at Embedded Behavioral Health since 13 May 2013 and by an off-post behavioral health provider for over a year for a diagnosis and symptoms of PTSD. Also noted, the applicant was diagnosed with a TBI at an on-post TBI clinic. Ms. S noted that the applicant's mental health symptoms were severe enough that caused the applicant significant difficulties at work. She opined that the applicant's psychological distress rendered him unfit for duty although the MEB narrative summary found him fit for duty. Numerous counseling statements, dated between 8 July 2011 and 14 February 2012, for recommendation for Chapter 14-12b separation, bar to reenlistment, failure to report, being late to formation, non-promotable status counseling and missing movement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 36 days (AWOL, 16 December 2011 to 9 January 2012 and 18 to 28 November 2011) / mode of return unknown j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 24 February 2012 and 1 March 2012, reflects the applicant has a history of depression, adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, PTSD, anxiety disorder NOS, attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and a history of traumatic brain injury. Landmark Counseling Services, LLC Diagnostic Report, dated 22 November 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with severe PTSD and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2012, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD, Depression NOS, and TBI. The report indicates the applicant was referred to behavioral health for MSE pending Chapter 14 separation; however, he was on several psychological medications and being treated for PTSD and depression. He was not cleared for administrative separation but rather recommended for referral to an MEB. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 March 2013, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD, ADHD (EPTS) and multiple medical problems. The report indicates the applicant had been through the MEB process, met retention standards, and his coping mechanisms were overwhelmed. Recommended the applicant engage in ongoing talk therapy and medication management. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 2013, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD and ADHD (EPTS) and multiple medical problems. The report indicates the applicant had been through the MEB process and met retention standards in December 2012, was mentally stable and able to participate in any administrative proceedings. Recommended the applicant continue his treatment for PTSD and TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored statement reference; Landmark Counseling Services LLC Diagnostic Report, dated 22 November 2011; Chronological Records of Medical Care, dated 24 February 2012, 1 and 14 March 2012, and 10, 14, and 16 January 2013. 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." 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's contentions regarding his PTSD diagnosis, the CoC's refusal to allow him to go to the WTU and prevention of finalizing the medical board procession were noted. The record confirms the applicant was being treated for PTSD while serving in the military. He was evaluated extensively by several behavioral health professionals and several reports indicate he was unfit for duty. In December 2012, the applicant was evaluated through the MEB process and deemed to have met retention standards, was mentally stable and able to participate in any administrative proceedings. However, the applicant was recommended to continue his treatment for PTSD and TBI. The record further confirms the applicant served 5 years, 9 months, and 17 days of service, a tour in combat to Iraq, and was diagnosed with PTSD while serving in the military. The applicant was treated for PTSD on several occasions by military and civilian behavioral health professionals before being discharged from the military and continues with post-service treatment of his mental health conditions. On 26 August 2015, the Army Discharge Review Board of record reviewed the applicant's prior request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined that his characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. diagnosis of in- service Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and as a result it is inequitable. It was concluded that his PTSD condition may have been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there was sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to general (under honorable conditions). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). However, the Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 24 March 2017, and by a 4-1 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, severe family matters (i.e. drug abuse wife endangering the baby), and post service accomplishments (i.e. remarried and assumed responsibility for four step children, won custody of son, and started residential cleaning business), and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial 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 AR20160014925 1