IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180007430 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for The Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 7 May 2018 * U.S. Army Quartermaster School Diploma, Fort Lee, dated 27 March 2012 * DA Form 4950 (Army Good Conduct Medal Certificate), dated 14 January 2015 * DA Form 4980-18 (Army Achievement Medal Certificate), dated 14 January 2015 * seven Army Training Certificates, dated between May 2012 to 2 May 2014 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 18 November 2016 * 22 pages of Medical Record extracts, Army Medical Center Womack, dated 2014 to 2016 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Rating Decision, dated 3 November 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. Mental issues impacted his behavior. His issues became too much to bear even with therapy and medication. b. He completed a period of honorable service and he earned many awards which recognized and proved he was a hardworking and dedicated Soldier. 2. On 4 October 2011, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. 3. He provided copies of: a. seven Certificates of Training showing he successfully completed the following: (1) Automated Logistical Specialist course 551-92A10, at Fort Lee Quartermaster School for the training period 24 January 2012 to 27 March 2012 on 27 March 2012; (2) Basic Combatives Course, (40 hours Level 1), on 4 May 2012; (3) 82nd Sustainment Brigade Driver's Academy High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Course, 80 hours, on 18 May 2012; (4) 82nd Sustainment Brigade Junior Leader's Course, Class 13-01, 80 hours; (5) Basic Combatives Course, Level 1, 40 hours, on 19 April 2013; (6) Basic Combat Lifesaver Course (Group X63), on 13 March 2014; and (7) Rough Terrain Container Handler Operator Course (500-ASIR1) on 2 May 2014. 4. Headquarters, 198th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, Fort Bragg, Permanent Orders 260-012, dated 17 September 2014, awarded him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 4 October 2011 to 4 October 2014. 5. Headquarters, 189th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, Permanent Orders Number 056-018, dated 25 February 2015, awarded him Army Achievement Medal for the period 15 April 2014 to 1 June 2014. 6. On 23 April 2015, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years. 7. He provided copies of his: a. Certificate of Training showing he successfully completed the 64-hour Basic Access Control Security Officer's Training Course on 15 May 2015; b. Certificate of Completion, dated 30 August 2016, showing he successfully completed the Scream-Free Course; and e. his Certificate of Affiliation with the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps Regiment, undated. 8. U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Hood, Orders 305-0266, dated 31 October 2016, reassigned him to U.S. Army transition point for transition processing with a reporting date of 1 November 2016. His date of discharge was listed as 18 November 2016. 9. On 18 November 2016, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. He completed 5 years and 16 days of net active service. His DD Form 214 shows in: a. block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – he was awarded or authorized the following: * Army Achievement Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon b. block 23 (Type of Separation) – Discharge, c. block 24 (Character of Service) – Under Honorable Conditions (General), d. block 26 (Separation Code) – JKA, e. block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During this Period) – Under Title 10, United States Code, section 972: 20160906-20161004 (6 September 2016 to 4 October 2016). 10. The applicant provided: a. 22 pages of medical record extracts from the Army Womack Medical Center, dated 1 December 2016. These documents show: (1) he was being administratively processed for discharge from the Army for work-related stress and non-chronic emotional stress. (2) he was interviewed for domestic/relational problems with his spouse. (3) he had completed the Scream Free Marriage Course and marriage counseling. (3) he was pending court proceedings related to a family domestic incident. b. his VA rating decision letter, dated 3 November 2017, that shows he was granted a 50 percent disability rating for major depressive disorder, recurrent (claimed as anxiety depression, and bipolar disorder), effective 1 December 2016. 11. The applicant's separation package is not available for review. 12. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: While liberal consideration guidance was applied, domestic assault is not a natural progression or normal sequela of in-service adjustment disorder or VA service connected major depressive disorder (MDD). Rather, it is more characteristic of the unspecified disorder of adult personality and behavior. Accordingly an upgrade is not recommended. a. In November 2014, the applicant went to primary care behavioral health reporting irritability and depressed mood related to a relationship ending. In January 2015, the applicant went to behavioral health reporting work stress and anger problems, “I have a swollen lip from a fight I got into last night.” He reported as a child, he was removed from his mother’s care due to drugs and in foster care for two years before his aunt and uncle obtained custody. The applicant saw psychiatry with a diagnosis of Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and medication. He discontinued care. b. In June 2015, the military police were called to the home after an altercation between his wife and he. The applicant subsequently avoided reporting to Family Advocacy Program (FAP) as required. Additionally, he was violating the no contact order admitting on one phone call his wife was with him. In August, the applicant informed FAP that “you can’t just tell me when to come in. I’ll tell you when I am off.” At the FAP intake, the applicant reported putting his wife in a headlock in March; giving her a black eye in April; and breaking her phone and denying her access to money and transportation in May. He denied the allegation he threatened to kill her in May. During a FAP group in April 2016, he reported when his wife came back home, he knew how he would handle things “if she doesn’t act right.” In May, he insisted on sitting in on his wife’s group. The provider met with the applicant to discuss concern he was engaging in controlling behaviors and made statements suggesting he was controlling his wife. That same month, his wife contacted FAP fearing an altercation if he returned; they decided to separate. The applicant returned to behavioral health in June noting anger issues his entire life and his wife “brought them out.” Subsequently, his wife and he moved back in together. c. In July, he received another Article 15 with pending administrative discharge and asked the psychiatrist “if his medication given him an alibi” to which the psychiatrist noted he’d been taking the medication two years prior so “improbable excuse for defense.” The applicant held diagnoses of adjustment disorder and unspecified disorder of adult personality and behavior, cluster B personality traits. In September 2016, the applicant was arrested for domestic violence. Police noted the applicant put his wife in a choke hold “preventing her from being able to breathe and causing her to become dizzy” and “dragged (her) down the hall and towards the bedroom. After the incident, poked in face with his finder.” He was charged with assault by strangulation. The applicant had a Mental Status Exam (MSE) in jail noting he put her in a headlock after a marital therapy session. d. In October, he had a physical altercation with his First Sergeant. The applicant noted anger over his characterization of discharge to which the provider indicated he was fortunate given the two domestic incidents and assaulting a noncommissioned officer. e. The applicant is 70% service connected for major depressive disorder (MDD). The applicant had a Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam in October 2017 with diagnosis of MDD; substantiation is void and self-report incongruent with records, e.g., denying disciplinary actions and interpersonal problems. 13. The Board should consider the applicant’s request in accordance with published Department of Defense Guidance for liberal consideration and equity, injustice and clemency determinations. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployment, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD claim, the review and conclusions of the medical advising official based on available medical records, and the applicant's response to the advisory opinion. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct not being mitigated by PTSD. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 2. The Board concurred with the correction described in Administrative Note(s) below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by executing the relief described in Administrative Note(s) below. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to changing the applicant's character of service. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): The applicant's DD Form 214 is missing a statement required by Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents). For Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except honorable, enter in item 18 (Remarks), “Continuous honorable active service from [first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not issued] until [date before commencement of current enlistment]." Correct the applicant's DD Form 214 by adding to item 18: "Continuous honorable active service from 20111004 until 20150422." REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, established policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Paragraph 3-7 stated: (1) An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (2) A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. It will not be issued to Soldiers solely upon separation at expiration of their period of enlistment, military service obligation, or period for which called or ordered to active duty. b. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. c. Paragraph 14-12b stated Soldiers are subject to action for a pattern of misconduct consisting of one of the following: (1) Discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities. (2) 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 civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. d. Paragraph 14-15 stated when the immediate commander determined that separation for acts or patterns of misconduct was in the best interest of the Service, he/she would report the fact in memorandum form to the separation authority through the intermediate commander. e. Paragraph 14-16 stated intermediate commanders could take one of the following actions in cases of misconduct, except for cases of abuse of illegal drugs: (1) Disapprove the recommendation and direct reassignment of the Soldier to another organization or direct disposition by other means. In case of reassignment, the commanding officer’s report would be sent to the new organization commander for information. (2) Approve the commanding officer’s recommendation and send the report to the separation authority. (a) A recommendation would be made as to characterization of service. (b) Disposition through medical channels was required if the Soldier had an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct for which action prescribed was being considered and action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would not be initiated. (3) Recommend separation for unsatisfactory performance if the reason for separation was determined to be a pattern of misconduct caused by the conditions in paragraph 13–2a, and unsatisfactory performance was stated as a basis for separation in the initial memorandum of notification. Commanders exercising special court-martial jurisdiction could disapprove the recommendation relating to misconduct and take further action per paragraph 13–9. f. Paragraph 14-17 stated on receiving a recommendation for separation for misconduct, the separation authority could take one of the following actions: (1) Disapprove the recommendation and direct reassignment of the Soldier to another organization. In case of reassignment, the commanding officer’s report would be forwarded to the new organization commander for information. (2) Disapprove the recommendation and return the case to the originator for disposition by other means. Include the reasons for considering separation for misconduct inappropriate, or take other appropriate action under this regulation. (3) Disapprove the recommendation relating to misconduct and take action himself/herself. (a) The case could be referred to the appropriate separation authority to determine whether the Soldier should be separated for unsatisfactory performance if the reason for separation was based substantially on any of the conditions described in paragraph 13–2a, and the misconduct was not so serious that a discharge under other than honorable conditions appeared appropriate. (b) Unless unsatisfactory performance was stated as a basis for separation in the initial memorandum of notification, new proceedings per chapter 13 had to be initiated to accomplish such separation. (4) Convene a board of officers as prescribed in chapter 2, section II, to determine whether the Soldier should be separated for misconduct. (5) When the board hearing has been properly waived, direct separation of the Soldier for misconduct. (6) When the board hearing has been properly waived, approve separation of the Soldier for misconduct and suspend execution of the separation. (7) Direct that the case be processed through medical channels, if appropriate. (a) Such disposition was required if the Soldier had an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct, and action under the Uniform Code of Military was not initiated. A copy of the signed decision by the General Court-Martial Authority would be included with the records. (b) Authority to determine that a case would be referred for disability processing instead of other administrative processing would not be delegated. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement) provides the standards for medical fitness for retention and separation, including retirement. Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter are referred for disability processing. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180007430 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1