1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 November 2016 b. Date Received: 19 December 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he requests an upgrade based on how he had been treated by several military and civilian personnel for the two and a half months prior to his discharge in 2014. He had followed all verbal and written orders to the best of his abilities. Any orders that were not followed, were a result of having been given orders without sufficient information as to how to achieve those orders. He had significant periods of memory loss, both short and long-term, as a result of the treatment he received. Because of this treatment a fellow Army guide was ordered to accompany the applicant in order for him to be present at all Army functions. He states that the guide was with him less than an hour a day and on most days not at all. He did not receive help and he was rarely was kept informed when orders were given. His unit leaders did not acknowledge that he was present most of the time. In May 2014, he had begun suffering panic attacks and in June 2014, he had an insurmountable level of emotional stress and he began suffering periods of short-term memory loss, which the Behavioral Health Unit, later determined were stress reactions. He states, he had always been an emotionally strong and resilient individual, however after he completed basic training, he did not have the same level of emotional competence. His panic attacks became more frequent, and consistently left him with increasing periods of memory loss. He went to a medical treatment facility where he was treated with skepticism and repeatedly told by civilian and military officials that he was acting strange and was making things up. After his initial treatment by a psychologist, he was forced into a counseling room where two or three officials told him to admit that he was making up his condition. He did not concede to their attempt at coercion. After receiving counseling through the Behavioral Health Unit, he sent all of his information to his State Congressman, and requested that an investigation be initiated into the treatment being done to him. After reflecting on his circumstances, he put in writing that he had at that time, no will to serve an Army that has treated him in this manner. He desired to be considered a conscientious objector in light of these events and that there was no place in the military or otherwise that he would serve an Army that had completely lost its values to those who are training, and in need of help. His commander informed him that there were two discharge options for him, one being honorable and one being uncharacterized. He had requested that he be given an honorable discharge because he was now a conscientious objector. He states, he remained in the company training room every day until he saw that the company first sergeant, who was a female, who kept a presence around the men's barracks where he resided. He believed he was being stalked by a senior NCO and communicated this to the only person he trusted, which was the Behavioral Psychologist. He did not feel safe anywhere outside of his barracks room for the last couple of weeks of his service. Later, he learned that at certain military locations, such as living quarters, no member of the opposite sex was allowed in those areas without being authorized. He states that he was in a weakened mental state at the time of his abuse and he did not trust anyone. He followed his orders to the best of his abilities, unless he feared for his own safety. He believes that he has been given unequal treatment under military law, given his past situation. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, there was insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. SM has a 30% service connected rating from the VA for Major Depression. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 April 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 8 August 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / Bachelor's Degree / 142 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 June 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood (Axis I); Other Cognitive Disorder (Axis I); and, Acute Stress Reaction with Disassociation (Axis I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and DA Form 3822. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on entry level separations. It states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. Chapter 11 of AR 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry level performance and conduct. 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 his uncharacterized discharge to honorable conditions and a narrative reason change. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 11, by reason of Entry Level Performance and Conduct, with a characterization of service of Uncharacterized. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends that he requested an honorable discharge based on his conscientious objector status. However, a general discharge under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge is rarely ever granted. An honorable discharge may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. Further, there is no evidence in the applicant's service record and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that he applied for conscientious objector status and that his request was approved. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because the treatment that he endured. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Entry Level Performance and Conduct," and the separation code is "JGA." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant's contentions about he followed all orders that when he was clearly informed, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that he was harrased and abused by members of his chain of command; however, he 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. evidence Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Further, 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 applicant contends his behavior was affected by the abusive treatment that he endured and resulted in him requiring behavioral health treatment. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood; Other Cognitive Disorder; and, Acute Stress Reaction with Disassociation. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 4 June 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 April 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 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 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 AR20160019481 4