1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 May 2015 b. Date Received: 2 June 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was given a choice to PCS or move to a new company. His company was under several investigations for treating Soldiers unfair so he choose to go home to be with his family. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 August 2016, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 July 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (20 February 2013); found sleeping on sentinel duty (28 April 2013); and, violated curfew by being off post after 0100 and failing to be inside his assigned room by 0200 (19 May 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 July 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 19 July 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 20 August 2012 / 3 years and 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / GED / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 10 months and 27 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 28 February 2013, for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer (20 February 2013). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for seven days. DD Form 2707-1 (Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial), dated 7 June 2013, reflects the applicant was found guilty of (Charge I, specifications 1 and 2) failing to obey a lawful general order on two occasions and (Charge IV, specification 1) misbehavior of sentinel or lookout. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and confinement for 14 days. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 7 June 2013 and 18 June 2013, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY) to “Confined by Military Authority,” effective 7 June 2013 and from “Confined by Military Authority” to “PDY,” effective 18 June 2013. Several negative counseling statements, dated 3 May 2013 and 20 May 2013, for falling asleep on duty, lying to a noncommissioned officer, recommendation for UCMJ, and violating USFK Command Policy reference (curfew, pass, and leave) recommendation for rehabilitative transfer i. Lost Time: 11 days (Confinement, 7 June 2013 – 18 June 2013) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 June 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) occupational problem V62.29. It was noted he could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. Results of the evaluation showed the applicant was responsible for his behavior, had the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative proceedings. Report of Medical History, dated 25 June 2013, reflects the applicant had a P3 profile and enlistment waiver for eczema and that he had been to angry management counseling in the past. He was recommended for continued care with Adult Behavioral Health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 28 May 2015; and DD Form 214. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or 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 civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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. 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. The applicant contends that his company was under several investigations. Specifically, he claims Soldiers were treated unfair so he choose to go home to be with his family. While the applicant may believe his stress at work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 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 5 August 2016, 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: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150009688 5