1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 June 2015 b. Date Received: 19 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 pertinent part and in effect, he was initially informed that he would get an honorable discharge for behavioral health issues. After months of zero progress with his involuntarily separation, he had family issues and was denied leave. He felt he had to leave so he went AWOL. However, he called his platoon sergeant every day to check-in at the request for his commanders. Once he returned, he was informed the paperwork for his discharge was never filed before the unit deployed, but that he was now being chaptered for misconduct. He never received an Article 15, which should attest to his character. He was a good Soldier who made a mistake. 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 which led to his separation from the Army. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: being AWOL, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and, failing to pay spousal support in accordance with AR 608-99, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 30 May 2012 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 6 October 2010 / 3 years and 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 7 months, and 9 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 23 January 2012 and 22 February 2012, indicates the applicant’s duty status changed from “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 23 January 2012, and from “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 22 February 2012. Negative counseling statements for being absent without leave; failing to report and be present for duty; lying to several NCOs; actions that led to his AWOL; imposition of having no-contact with his spouse; and addressing an IG complaint for financial nonsupport. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 January 2012, indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared. i. Lost Time: 30 days (AWOL, 23 January 2012 - 21 February 2012) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 16 April 2012, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues (depression). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 14 June 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 14-12c 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. 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 and the issues 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, such that he should have been retained on active duty. The applicant’s contentions regarding his behavioral health issues were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. In consideration of the applicant's contentions that he was a good Soldier and never received an Article 15, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends he was a good Soldier who made a mistake. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 26 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/Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change 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 AR20150010706 1