1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 October 2016 b. Date Received: 19 December 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was wrongfully discharged. He had a mental breakdown due to his wife leaving him for another Soldier two days before Christmas and taking his newborn son and refusing to allow him to see his son. He asked his command numerous times for help and none was received. Due to series of family misfortunes he was mentally unable to perform duties. His commander held a formation and said, we could no longer go to behavioral health. He was admitted to the hospital for severe anxiety and depression. He was told by doctors that he could not participate in training and his commander refused to take the doctors seriously and ordered him to go to National Training Center (NTC). He had never been in trouble before. He was ahead of his peers and he was on his way to becoming an NCO, motivated and a very hard worker. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, applicant had treatment as a family member at age 15 for "a long history of ADHD." with Concerta. He apparently, per a FAP report, had also stabbed his stepfather in an argument about having ot have things "clean and in order." He had various adjustment disorders diagnosed in service, with some related to family. He had positive screen for PTSD during chapter process, but when he took the full PCL5, his score was low. He does not have a mitigating condition. JLV showed no VA SC disability, diagnoses, or outpatient/inpatient encounters. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 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: 22 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he failed to obey a lawful order issued by First Lieutenant J.G. (4 September 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 June 2016, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 October 2012 / 3 Years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / GED Certificate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 2 years, 8 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 15 December 2015, for having knowledge of a lawful order issued by First Lieutenant J.C.G., to get on the bus to train at NTC, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by not boarding the bus to NTC (4 September 2015); reduction to PV2 / E-2), forfeiture of $867 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 September 2015, relates that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He was a first time admit to the lBHU for the applicant that was referred through EBH Team 1 provider after verbalizing suicidal thoughts with intent., writing "suicidal" on screening intake form and having a (+) BDHP screening indicative of suicidality. At the time of discharge, the patient was hopeful, continuously denied any suicidal / homicidal thoughts or intent, could continue to voice reasons for living, could verbalize new coping mechanism he learned on the ward, and had a robust safety plan. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 February 2016, revealed that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder. He was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain lnjury, both screens were negative. He was cleared for Chapter 14-12. He met medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, Chapter 3. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: online application (six pages); DD Form 214; and applicant's statement regarding 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 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 (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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was wrongfully discharged. 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 had a mental breakdown due to his wife leaving him for another Soldier two days before Christmas, taking his newborn son and refusing to allow him to see his son; and his commander held a formation and said, we could no longer go to behavioral health. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support these contentions. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support these contentions that he had a mental breakdown and that Soldiers could no longer go behavioral health. The applicant also contends, he asked his command numerous times for help and none was received; and due to a series of family misfortunes he was mentally unable to perform duties. 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. The applicant additionally contends, he was admitted to the hospital for severe anxiety and depression. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was referred to the hospital due to the potential threat to himself or others. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was told by doctors that he could not participate in that training and his commander refused to take the doctors seriously and ordered him to go to NTC. The record of evidence shows that the applicant told Dr. H., he did not want to go to the NTC, but would rather stay in the rear and work out his personal issues. Dr. H. informed him as long as he was no longer having suicidal ideations, that he was medically fit for duty and would therefore have to participate in the field training occurring at the NTC. Moreover, the applicant contends, he had never been in trouble before. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was ahead of his peers and he was on his way to becoming an NCO, motivated and a very hard worker. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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 23 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. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change 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 AR20160019500 3