1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 March 2017 b. Date Received: 16 March 2017 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 diagnosed with chronic PTSD and also an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and prescribed medications for treatment. A prior records review was conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 August 2015. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition. A review of VA medical records indicated SM had diagnoses of PTSD, Depression, and involvement in FAP for domestic violence. His behavioral health conditions; however, are not reasonably related to or mitigating for the pattern of misconduct leading to an early separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 February 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, chapters 4-2a(1), a(3), a(6), b(1), b(2), b(5) and c(5), due to substandard performance of duty, misconduct and moral and professional dereliction and derogatory information filed in his OMPF. He was notified of the following reasons for elimination; sexually harassing two female NCOs; fraternizing with enlisted members; disobeying a lawful order not to drive on a suspended and / or expired license; failing to meet his personal financial obligations, including but not limited to his rent; his work performance being poor; improperly conducting personal business for extensive periods on the phone, in violation of AR 25-1, Chapter, paragraph 6-1e; failing to report for duty the entire day of 7 February 2012; receiving a referred OER on 28 October 2011; receiving an OMPF filed GOMOR for misconduct on 1 June 2012; and his security clearance being suspended. (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. On 27 July 2012, the Commanding Officer, Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, MD, recommend that the applicant be separated from the army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 July 2012, the applicant requested to resign from the Army with an honorable discharge when separated. On 8 August 2012, the applicant also voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. The applicant's chain of command recommended his request for voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination be disapproved. On 20 August 2012, the Commanding Officer, Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, MD, recommended his request for voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination be disapproved. On 30 November 2012, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), did not accept his resignation that he conditioned upon receiving no worse than a general discharge. The DASA directed the case be returned to the Commanding Officer, Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-20(i)(3) and 4-24(g), further directed a BOI authorized to recommend an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service be conducted, unless the applicant tenders an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. (5) Administrative Separation Board / BOI: On 10 January 2013, the applicant was notified to appear before a Field Officer Board of Inquiry (BOI) and advised of his rights. On 22 February 2013, the BOI convened to make the findings and recommendations for the charges against the applicant. The Board concluded and signed a findings and recommendations worksheet. The applicant's counsel immediately objected to the findings and recommendations worksheet, arguing that it did not match the 18 June 2012 charge sheet and was thus not proper. On 1 March 2013, after review of the issue raised by applicant's counsel, the recorder requested that the Board reconvene to consider a findings and recommendations worksheet that matched the 18 June 2012 charge sheet. The applicant's counsel objected to this request, arguing that the Board cannot revise the findings once the Board is closed. On 11 April 2013, the applicant was notified again to appear before a Field Officer Board of inquiry on 24 April 2013 and advised of his rights. On 24 April 2013, the BOI findings dated 22 February 2013, pertaining to the applicant were set aside by the Board president, with the approval of General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA), because the form of the findings did not conform with the notice provided to the applicant. On 24 April 2013, the board reconvened. The applicant appeared through counsel before the board. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 1 July 2013, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case on the applicant and recommended he be eliminated from the US Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 8 July 2013, The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), approved the Board's recommendation to involuntarily separate the applicant from the US Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b, derogatory information paragraph 4-2c and substandard performance paragraph 4-2a, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2011 / 724 days b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 years / College Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 92A, Quartermaster / 11 years, 11 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 November 2002 to 20 February 2002 / NIF USAR (Cadet), 22 February 2002 to 1 November 2004 / NA RA, 2 November 2004 to 26 June 2007 / HD ARNG, 27 June 2007 to 31 March 2008 / HD ARNG (Cadet), 1 April 2008 12 May 2010 / NA Appointed 2LT/USAR, 13 May 2010 USAR, 13 May 2010 to 25 October 2011 / NA AD, 26 October 2011 to 31 October 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 15 October 2010 to 4 October 2006 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 13 May 2011 to 22 June 2012, Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 June 2012, for harassing a female NCO and driving without a license after being ordered no to do so. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Letter, licensed psychologist; dated 25 January 2012, relates that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, moderate and was not prescribed medication at the time. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 April 2012, relates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions, conduct and partner relational problems. He had a positive screen for mTBI with additional handwritten comments regarding his experience with mTBI. Chronological record of medical care, dated 1 February 2013, relates the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, adjustment disorder with depressed mood and prescribed medications for treatment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; letter, licensed psychologist; chronological record of medical care (four pages); outcome questionnaire; NGB Form 22; and three DD Forms 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant' unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and also an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and prescribed medications for treatment. The record of evidence shows that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, adjustment disorder with depressed mood and prescribed medications for treatment. 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 additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None were listed on the hearing data sheet. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None were listed on the hearing data sheet. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 February 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170003782 5