1. APPLICANT’S NAME: a. Application Date: 25 August 2015 b. Date Received: 31 August 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he believes his separation was erroneous because the charges against him were dismissed by a civilian court—even though, he was not guilty of any crime, he was discharged. The applicant explained the circumstances surrounding the events which led to his discharge. He adds although being diagnosed with PTSD is not an excuse or reason, it was a contributing factor which led to his separation. He was not afforded the due process he deserved and lost the benefits he earned by serving his country. He sacrificed everything for the Army for the last 15 years to include the loss of two close friends in the span of five combat deployments. He served his country honorably and will continue to do so in the military, if given the opportunity or in whatever he does in life. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a review of the applicant's Active Duty electronic medical records finds a behavioral health condition, which could be considered a mitigating factor for some, but not all, of the offenses. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in May 2008. Because PTSD is sometimes associated with avoidance behavior, it is possible that his disobeying an order by running from a building was related to his PTSD. However, the other charges, which included domestic violence, threats to kill his wife, threats to kill his wife's First Sergeant and Commander, and violation of a military protection order by making contact with his wife, are not mitigated by the PTSD. Accordingly, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and hearing his testimony, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, i.e., in-service diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was concluded that the other behavioral health issues may have been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant’s misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s service to general, under honorable conditions. Accordingly, at a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 April 2016, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined, the reason for the discharge was both proper and equitable, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of rank/grade to SGT/E-5. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He committed domestic violence offense against his spouse, a dependent abuse offense. On 26 March 2014, he got into a verbal argument with his spouse, in front of his two children, which escalated into a physical altercation. He grabbed his wife by her neck and struck her in the face multiple times while his children were present, and when the police arrived, his wife was at his neighbors with an ice pack on her face, which was swollen with red marks. Additionally, on separate occasions (between 30 August 2014 and 7 September 2014), the applicant threatened to kill his wife. He also told his wife he would kill her first sergeant and commander. On 9 September 2014, he was ordered by 1SG M to remain in the sergeant major's office; however, the applicant disobeyed this order and ran from the building. While confined, he violated a military protection order given to him by the battalion commander, and made contact with his wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 December 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 16 January 2015 (The board recommended separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.) (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 4 February 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / 2 years of college / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-6 / 92A1P, Automated Logistical Specialist / 14 years, 10 months, 13 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations:  RA (4 January 2000-20 March 2003) / HD          RA (21 March 2003-5 December 2006) / HD          RA (6 December 2006-1 October 2011) / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (10 August 2002-4 January 2003), Iraq (4 September 2003-6 April 2004), (28 November 2006-16 February 2008), and (7 November 2008-28 October 2009), Afghanistan (10 April 2011-31 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5; AAM-5; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM-3CS; ICM-5CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; NPDR-2; ASR; OSR-4; NATO MDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Four NCOERs received during service under current review: 1 February 2011-31 January 2012, Fully Capable 1 February 2012-1 November 2012, Among the Best 2 November 2012-3 May 2013, Fully Capable 3 May 2013-2 May 2014, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 August 2014, for being disrespectful in language towards 1SG M on 17 July 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,547 (suspended), 45 days of extra duty (suspended), and an oral reprimand. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 10 September 2014, indicates the punishment of forfeiture of $1,547 and 45 days of extra duty imposed on 25 August 2014, was vacated due to the applicant failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 5 September 2014. Memorandum, dated 6 January 2015, subject: Disqualification of the Army Good Conduct Medal, indicates the applicant’s disqualification for the period from 4 January 2012 to 5 January 2015, due to his involuntary separation proceedings. i. Lost Time: 94 days (Civil Confinement: 26-27 March 2014 / Military Confinement: 9 September 2014 through 9 December 2014) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Letter from attorney, Mr. H, dated 20 January 2015; memorandum, dated 21 July 2014, subject: Informal Complaint by [the applicant]; two initial requests for redress from the applicant to Commander JHG and MG L; applicant’s spouse statement, dated 15 July 2014; MG L’s letter to the applicant, dated 29 April 2015; extract copy of AR 27-10, pages 98-100, 106-107; district court document, dated 14 October 2014; and congressional correspondence, dated 29 January 2015. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None. 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, by implication provided the same guidance to the Service Discharge Review Boards whose decisions are reviewable by the Service Correction Boards. That memorandum provided PTSD or PTSD-related conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." However, the memorandum also states, "Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under 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 the 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 ISSUE(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant’s available record of service, and 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’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that led to his discharge proceedings were carefully considered. However, the Board can find that his complete period of service and his accomplishments were sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant’s contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, specifically, that he was diagnosed with PTSD which may have been the cause of the misconduct that led to his discharge, were carefully considered. Although the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition, further review in the applicant’s electronic medical records by the Board’s Medical Officer revealed behavioral health issues. 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 the discharge was erroneous because any charges as bases for his discharge were dismissed by a civilian court. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. In fact, the record of evidence contains two discrediting Article 15 actions rendered during the period under current review; therefore, the charges dismissed in civil court were not the sole basis for his discharge proceedings. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge at this time. Further, the record indicates the applicant is scheduled for a personal appearance hearing. It would still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents to support his issues for the Board’s consideration because they are not available with his current application. 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. DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY PRESENTED, AND OBSERVERS PRESENT (IF ANY) DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: The Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Self-authored letter - (1 page) DA Photo Character letters - (4 pages) PTSD diagnosis and treatment - (3 pages) Letter from spouse – (3 pages) Memorandum for confinement and court-martial - (6 pages) El Paso County Court papers – (4 pages) Letter from Senator Bennet – (1 page) Letter to Company Commander – (3 pages) Letter to Commanding General – (3 pages) Letter from attorney – (1 page) Reply from Commanding General – (1 page) b. Witnesses/Observers: Yes (grandmother) and (father). 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: Per the Board's Medical Officer, a review of the applicant's Active Duty electronic medical records finds a behavioral health condition, which could be considered a mitigating factor for some, but not all, of the offenses. The applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in May 2008. Because PTSD is sometimes associated with avoidance behavior, it is possible that his disobeying an order by running from a building was related to his PTSD. However, the other charges, which included domestic violence, threats to kill his wife, threats to kill his wife's First Sergeant and Commander, and violation of a military protection order by making contact with his wife, are not mitigated by the PTSD. Accordingly, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and hearing his testimony, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, i.e., in-service diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was concluded that the other behavioral health issues may have been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. After carefully weighing that facts against the severity of the applicant’s misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s service to general, under honorable conditions. Accordingly, at a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 April 2016, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined, the reason for the discharge was both proper and equitable, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of rank/grade to SGT/E-5. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore Grade to: SGT/E-5 AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge 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 IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150014440 7