1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 December 2015 b. Date Received: 16 December 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 going through a separation board, including a medical board. He was suffering from severe PTSD, which the VA rated at 70 percent and granted him a total rating of 100 percent permanent disability. The applicant contends that had he been separated through a medical board, his discharge would have been honorable. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has extensive mental-health contact in his record. Prior to his discharge he had diagnoses of Adjustment disorders, Alcohol Dependence, Opioid Abuse, Chronic Pain, and PTSD in AHLTA, with the fist diagnosis of PTSD occurring in 2013. He has documented treatment for alcoholism as far as 2007. AHLTA records also mentioned treatment for ADD as a juvenile. He also ASAP treatment in 2012. He has a 100 percent service-connected disability rating from the VA, with 70 percent for PTSD. VA diagnoses shown in the Joint Legacy Viewer included PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, Alcohol Abuse and Cannabis Abuse on his active problem list. Problems with depression and alcohol clearly predate his deployment to Afghanistan February 2011 to February 2012. A Lieutenant General reviewed his case and ordered an expedited discharge owing to an episode in which he was accused of hit and run and of kidnapping. An Army board did determine the preponderance of evidence supported the accusations being true. The PTSD history would not have justified a MEB at the time he was discharged, though he repeated failures to control his drinking might have. PTSD and other mental disorders would not mitigate kidnapping, and it seems unlikely that it could mitigate hit and run; however, details of this incident are sparse. What is clear is that his case was reviewed by a very high ranking officer who ordered an expedited separation from the Army. Finally, his IDES case concerned lower back pain that was making him unsuited for service, not PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 February 2017, 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: 22 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was arrested for kidnapping and felonious hit and run resulting in serious injury or death (11 September 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Conditionally Waived, 13 December 2012, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 22 February 2013, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 24 April 2013, the separation authority reviewed the administrative separation actions and Medical Evaluation Board results and found that the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination and other circumstances of the individual case do not warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. Therefore, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 April 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (Note: The separation authority determined the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial cause of the conduct that led to his discharge.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 14G20, Air Defense Battle Management System Operator / 6 years, 11 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 June 2006 to 25 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Kuwait (15 January 2008 to 5 April 2009) and Afghanistan (13 February 2011 to 28 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, MUC g. Performance Ratings: Four NCOERs: 1 April 2009 thru 60 June 2009, Fully Capable 1 July 2009 thru 30 June 2010, Fully Capable 1 July 2010 thru 30 June 2011, Fully Capable 1 July 2011 thru 16 May 2012, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Actions forms, dated 12 September 2012, reflect the applicant's duty status changed from "PDY" to "Confined by Civilians," effective 12 September 2012, and from "Confined by Civilians" to "PDY," effective 20 September 2012. Administrative Separation Board Findings and Recommendation, dated 22 February 2013 Separation Orders, dated 7 May 2013 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 8 days (Confined by Civil Authorities, 12 September 2012 to 19 September 2012) / released from civil confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record further 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 were carefully reviewed. 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. The applicant contends he was suffering from severe PTSD. However, 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 his PTSD diagnosis. The applicant contends he should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. Further, the evidence shows the separation authority reviewed the medical evaluation board results and determined the applicant medical condition was not the direct or substantial cause of the conduct that led to his discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official 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 24 February 2017, 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: 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160000334 1