1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 October 2016 b. Date Received: 31 October 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was separated and wrongfully accused of misconduct as retaliation / reprisal due to EO/IG complaints against his unit (see attached JAG / EO documentation). He was in the MEB process and found unfit for duty for five medical disqualifiers to include PTSD. He currently receives 100 percent from the VA. He respectfully request all attachments be reviewed and an honorable discharge be granted and an MEB be reinitiated. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has a General Discharge and is contending his PTSD mitigates his instances of misconduct. There is no issue about whether the applicant has PTSD. BG Brian Winski reviewed his separation packet, noted he was in the MEB process for PTSD, concluded that PTSD was not mitigating for the misconduct the applicant had been committing (threatening to kill somebody, pressing his soldiers to pay him "finders fees," etc.), and cleared him for administrative, rather than medical, separation. I concur. AHTLA records showed a history of Anxiety Disorder NOS, concussion without loss of consciousness, Highly Irritable, Insomnia, Erectile Dysfunction, Marital Problems, Nicotine Dependence, Occupational Problem, and PTSD. His PTSD was first diagnosed on 13 August 2014. JLV confirmed his claim of a 100% VA SC disability rating. His VA Problem List did not include BH diagnoses and his VA outpatient encounters did not reference BH problems, other than concussion without loss of consciousness. He has dealt, per VA records, with homelessness and economic problems since his discharge. A DoD AHLTA note on 06 April 2016 used Opioid Dependence, uncomplicated, on his problem list. In all, there was insufficient evidence to mitigate the applicant's misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 March 2018, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; having received a lawful command from CPT. X., his superior commissioned officer, to "return PFC T.J.C.'s vehicle to his brother," or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same (18 July 2015); violating a lawful general regulation on several occasions, by wrongfully traveling outside of the 100 mile radius of his appointed place of duty without an approved mileage pass between (1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015); wrongfully communicating to Mr. X., a threat to injure him by shooting Mr. X., if he came anywhere near his house, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces (18 July 2015); and convincing Soldiers newly arrived to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to pay him a "finder's fee'' in an amount from $100 to $500 in return for his help in purchasing a motor vehicle from automotive dealers located in Virginia, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between (1 July 2014 and 30 April 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The senior intermediate commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 August 2015, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 October 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 9 November 2015, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 17 March 2016, the separation authority reviewed the administrative separation board proceedings, and medical evaluation board documents pertaining to the applicant. He determined that the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that led to the recommendation of an administrative separation. Further, the applicant was screened for PTSD and (mTBI). The applicant tested positive for PTSD; however, he was cleared for administrative proceedings but subsequently this same condition was recognized as a service disqualifying condition through the medical evaluation board process. As previously stated he found that this medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of misconduct that led to the recommendation of an administrative separation. The separation authority directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 April 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 years / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y1P, Unit Supply Specialist / 11 years, 5 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USN, 18 November 2003 to 17 July 2008 / HD USNR, 18 July 2008 to 11 November 2008 / NA RA, 12 November 2008 to 25 April 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: South Africa, 13 November 2007 to 13 July 2008 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, NCOPDR, ASR, USNACM, USNGCM, USNSSDR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement for disobeying a lawful order and a monthly performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages). 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's available 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 (serious offense), 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 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, he was separated and wrongfully accused of misconduct as retaliation / reprisal due to EO / IG complaints against his unit. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, he was in the MEB process and found unfit for duty for five medical disqualifiers to include PTSD. The record of evidence shows that the separation authority found that the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of misconduct that led to the recommendation of an administrative separation. The applicant tested positive for PTSD; however, he was cleared for administrative proceedings but subsequently this same condition was recognized as a service disqualifying condition through the medical evaluation board process. The separation authority further determined that this medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of conduct that led to the recommendation of administrative separation. The applicant respectfully request his MEB be reinitiated. The applicant's requested does not fall within the purview of this Army Discharge Review Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 March 2018, 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160017057 5