1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 27 October 2015 b. Date Received: 2 November 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, his unit failed to pursue UCMJ action for nine recurrent failing to report events by not seeking AWOL charges. His command failed to follow prescribed procedures and he had no recourse other than an acceptance of separation action. He acknowledges recurrent issues with accountability but his recurrent requests and demands for assistance with mental health issues were not treated but used as evidence to justify his discharge, which disallowed his VA benefits. His command repeatedly issued orders demonstrated on formal counseling statements assigning accountability to not only him, but also to the NCOs in his accountability chain. The NCOs failed to assist, and failed to be held culpable for their nonsupport with his mental health issues that was begging for help. His command’s sole intent was to discharge him by continuous documentary chain of evidence. He was not afforded the opportunity to seek proper medical assistance; he was deprived contact with family members; he was sequestered to military control within the confines of his unit; he was deprived of military pay and allowances; he was given access to intoxicating beverages with intent to perpetuate the alcohol abuse issues; and he was the only person held accountable. He was destined to fail as the command established a definitive avenue for failure that could not be circumvented. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has no mitigating behavioral health conditions for the offenses leading to his separation from the military. The military and VA electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 December 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: 28 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on diverse occasions (30 April 2012; 1 May 2012; 29 June 2012; 2,24, and 30 July 2012; 1 and 7 August 2012; 7 September 2012; 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23 October 2012; and 15 November 2012); disrespectful to a senior NCO on divers occasions (1 May 2012); unable to properly perform his duties (29 June 2012); and, arrested for simple battery (15 May 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 December 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 July 2009 / 4 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 6 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 December 2009 to 1 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-CS, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 29 June 2012, shows the applicant was command-referred into the program for two alcohol-related misconduct within a 12-month period. CG Article 15, dated 30 July 2012, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on divers occasions (29 June 2012, 1 May 2012, 30 April 2012, and 2 July 2012) being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on two separate occasions (1 May 2012), and being incapacitated for proper performance of his duties due to overindulgence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (29 June 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $462, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Negative counseling statements for an involuntary separation action being initiated; failing to be at his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions; disrespecting an NCO; being arrested and charged with simple battery during a family violence act; issuing him a no-contact order; suspending his pass privileges; lying to his chain of command; and missing his behavioral health appointment. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2012, for not being at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (20 and 23 July 2012; and 1 and 7 August 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 September 2012, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Anxiety Disorder NOS (R/O PTSD). Further evaluation of symptoms were necessary based upon clinical impression during an interview to determine fitness for duty and appropriateness for administrative separation. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 November 2012, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety (Per AHLTA records). The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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.” 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 that his discharge was unjust were carefully considered. 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 any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Regarding his contentions that his demands for assistance with mental health issues were not treated but used as evidence to justify his discharge, which disallowed his VA benefits, eligibility for veterans’ 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. Regarding his behavioral health issues, a careful review of the applicant's 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 evidence of record further shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishments. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 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 7 December 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change e. Restoration to Grade: No Change Authenticating Official: Microsoft Office Signature Line... Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO – Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS – Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA – Veterans Affairs