1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 November 2015 b. Date Received: 4 December 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded due to medical reasons. He was discharged for disobeying a direct order not to leave base, which was his response after losing his child; the applicant was not of sound mind during that time. The applicant believes his commander's order to have been unbecoming of an officer, if not unlawful. Due to the loss of his daughter and his inability to process the grief at the time, he was unable to properly defend himself through the proceedings. He was dealing with grief, PTSD and antisocial personality. He has been treated for a number of years due to his daughter's passing. He would have gladly continued to serve, if not for this incident. His family has a tradition of serving in the military and he desires to remove this blemish from his service record. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The applicant wrote that he was suffering from grief due to the loss of his daughter. The applicant provided no supporting medical or behavioral health documentation. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed and no clinical encounters found (note: AHLTA implementation began in 2003). No clinical notes found. Laboratory results from October 2002 thru December 2002 were reviewed. Radiology reports (multiple) reviewed from September 2002 thru January 2003. CT scan head (29 September 2002) for 2 hour headache, with no intracranial abnormality. The applicant underwent lumbar puncture (i.e. a spinal tap) on 30 September 2002 to rule out meningitis with results unremarkable. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Administration records notes no records. The Veteran's Administration has not service-connected the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 March 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 11 March 2003, reflects the applicant was charged with violations of the UCMJ, Articles 90 and 134. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 90, Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (with two specifications) Specification I: Adultery Specification II: Debt, dishonorably failing to pay (spousal support) (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 March 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 13 March 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 January 2001 / 6 years (Note: The applicant's service record reflects he entered Active Duty on 17 January 2001; however, his DD Form 214, block 12a, reflects he entered on 10 November 2000) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 128 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91P10, X-Ray Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 22 June to 28 August 1998 / UNC USAR, 25 April 1997 to 28 August 1998 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 5 February 2003, for making a false official statement (9 January 2003) and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife (19 October 2003). The form did not include any punishment that may have been imposed. An unexecuted and undated FG Article 15. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for issuance of a No Contact Order, leaving his appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct towards a NCO, failure to obey an order or regulation, communicating a threat, failure to be in the proper uniform, and failure to be at his appointed place of duty. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 11 March 2003, described at the preceding paragraph 3c(2). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and a DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. The applicant contends that his commander's conduct toward him was unbecoming of officer. However, 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 applicant contends that he was grieving from the loss of his daughter, which 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 he was suffering from PTSD and antisocial disorder. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD or other diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 8 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 AR20160000833 1