1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 May 2015 b. Date Received: 15 July 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident. The applicant served over 13 years with no other adverse action. He held the rank of E-6 and was considered for promotion to E-7. At the time, the applicant states that he and his wife were not doing well and that he was struggling to balance work and home. The applicant was too ashamed to ask for help, instead allowing himself to become lost mentally. He understands and has learned from his mistakes and regrets that any of it happened. The applicant contends that he became depressed and thoughts of suicidal ideation occurred daily. He made a mistake that cost him his career, the respect from the military, his friends and family, to include himself. The applicant states that he is a better man and a better person who’s made a positive impact in the world today, continuing to improve himself and others around him. He wishes he can go back in time to change the past and receive the proper help he needed. During his journey, the applicant states that he lost loved ones along the way, his health is falling apart due to his military experience; however, he is unable to afford medical health insurance. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant’s separation from the Army. No Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) records available. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 2016, and by a 4-1 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: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3, Section IV / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, dated 7 January 2002, on 27 June 2001, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for violation of lawful general regulations, CASCOM&FL Regulation 600-27, para 4(d), between on or about 20-30 November 2000, 15-19 January 2001, 24 January – February 2001. Charge II, violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for wrongfully committing adultery between on or about 20-30 November 2000 and 15-19 January 2001. (2) Adjudged Sentence: a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $695.00 pay per month for two months, confinement for two months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad-conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 7 January 2002 / only so much of the sentence, a reduction E-1, forfeiture of $767 pay per month for four months, confinement for two months, and a bad conduct discharge was approve and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 3 December 2004 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 30 November 1999 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 34 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-6 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 18 years and 28 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 2 December 1986 – 12 September 1991 / HD RA, 13 September 1991 – 12 October 1994/ HD RA, 13 October 1994 – 25 June 1997 / HD RA, 26 June 1997 – 29 November 1999 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: February 1994 – May 1994, Fully Capable June 1994 – January 2001, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order No. 2, dated 7 January 2002, promulgates the finding of guilty of the charges and its specifications, adjudged sentence, and the approval of the sentence. Special Court-Martial Order No. 230, dated 3 December 2004, ordered the BCD to be executed. i. Lost Time: 48 days (Military Confinement, 27 June 2001 – 14 August 2001) 1,284 days (excess leave, 15 August 2001 – 18 February 2005) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Forms 293 and 149, both dated 1 May 2015; two self-authored statements; DD Form 214; and the following: Special Court Martial Order 230, dated 3 December 2004; Special Court Martial Order 2, dated 7 January 2002; Four NCOERs; and, Enlistment Contract 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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms there was full consideration of all faithful and honorable service, as well as, the incidents of misconduct. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant’s innocence of charges for which she was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. 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 incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that he struggle to balance work and home, in addition to being too ashamed to ask for help, 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. The applicant contends that his health is falling apart due to his military experience, but is unable to afford medical health insurance. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 19 August 2016, and by a 4-1 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 AR20150012096 1