1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2015 b. Date Received: 18 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, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 5 years and 6 months of service, with no other adverse action. 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: 20 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 April 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant knowingly and intentionally attempting to commit the crimes of statutory rape and child molestation and knowingly and intentionally furnishing obscene material to minors through electronic means (8 May 2012). Specifically, the applicant: sent online and text messages to a female under 16, to arrange a meeting to have sex and arrive at the designed location with the intent of having sex with the minor; sent sexually explicit text messages to a female under the age of 16 with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of both the child and himself, arranged to meet with whom he thought to be a female under the age of 16 to engage in sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, and arrived at the designed location to meet the child; and, knowingly and deliberately furnished by electronic means to E.S., an individual he should have known was a minor, an electronic photograph of his erect penis which depicted sexually explicit nudity, which was harmful to minors. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Conditionally waived, 17 April 2013, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable that a general, under honorable. On 17 May 2013, the separation authority, disapproved the applicant’s requested conditional waiver and referred his separation packet to an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: 26 June 2013 (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 4 September 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions. This decision was made by the separation authority considering whether to process the applicant through the physical disability system in lieu of separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, and finding that his medical condition was not a direct or substantial cause of his misconduct as outlined in the separation packet. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 2 January 2008 / 3 years and 17 weeks (Documents extending the applicant’s period of enlistment were not found in the available record) b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / GED / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 5 years, 8 months, and 19 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 December 2008 – 23 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CID Report, dated 9 May 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for attempted criminal statutory rape, attempted criminal child molestation, and electronically furnishing obscene material to a minor. DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated 17 July 2012, reflects that a request for a mental health evaluation was submitted as a result of charges pending against him. DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), reflect an Administrative Separation Board convened on 26 June 2013, to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the United States Army, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of Serious Offense. Administrative Separation Board Findings, prepared by the board recorder, and the Verbatim Findings and Recommendations, signed by the board members, reflect the allegations that the applicant knowingly and deliberately furnished by electronic means to E.S., an individual he should have known was a minor, an electronic photograph of his erect penis which depicted sexually explicit nudity, which was harmful to minors, in the notification of proposed separation, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In view of the finding, the board recommended that the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 September 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder: PTSD. It was noted on the document that the applicant had some treatment for PTSD but continued to have symptoms. He was cleared for Chapter discharge until he could obtain appropriated treatment. He had also been in a number of explosions which involved LOC and needs to be evaluated by TBI unit before he could be cleared. Chronological Records of Medical Care reflect the applicant suffered with chronic PTSD, adjustment disorder, and adjustment disorder with anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 15 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, the documents and the issues submitted with the 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 discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident. Although an isolated 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 an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Furthermore, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 AR20150011022 1