1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 December 2015 b. Date Received: 11 October 2016 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 effect, he was discharged because of his effeminate anatomy. His aunt had his body changed when he was five years old by a doctor who did black-market operations. His drill sergeant told him that the regular Army was going to chew him up. The applicant contends that his battalion sergeant major told him that when he changed duty stations, he was going to make sure that he was kicked out of the military. When the applicant arrived at his new duty station, he deployed to Iraq and was discharged upon his return. The applicant states he had a nearly spotless record, with only one Article 15 before his deployment. The applicant contends that his PTSD was undiagnosed and his psychological combat stress clearly was not considered. The applicant contends that he was ostracized during his military career; they did not want to take orders from a hermaphrodite. The applicant alleges that he had to be housed by himself in special housing when he was reclassifying in his MOS and housed in a hotel during training because no one wanted to be around him. The applicant requests extreme leniency when the Board considers his upgrade. He was maliciously discharged from the military in disregard of his two back to back deployments. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant mentioned that he was an hermaphrodite, but the AHLTA records had no reference to it. His AHLTA records included no behavioral-health diagnoses. Although he was in the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), as of 23 February 2017, he had no VA contacts recorded in the JLV. Prior to discharge, he had a pre-discharge Mental Status Exam on 28 February 2008, which cleared him for discharge under Chapter 14. A pre-discharge medical exam on 3 April 2008 did not mention any psychiatric symptoms and on 3 April 2008 records his profile as 111111. There is no basis for mitigation in the available records. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 June 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 April 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received an FG Article 15, for missing movement and for causing a negligent discharge of his weapon in his containerized housing unit (25 October 2007); and, failed to be an accountability formation (20 and 21 February 2008). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 May 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 June 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 October 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Associate's Degree / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92W10, Water Treatment Specialist / 4 years, 9 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 August 2003 to 11 June 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (1 November 2004 to 15 November 2005 and 28 October 2006 to 8 December 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 October 2007, for missing movement (25 August 2007) and negligently discharge a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in the floor of his containerized housing unit (7 September 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $700 pay (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 February 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Three Developmental Counseling Forms for failing to report to his appointed place of duty on two occasions; and, violation of mileage radius. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a self-authored statement. 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 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. 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, 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 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 be retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that he was harassed and discriminated by members of his chain of command; 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends his undiagnosed PTSD affected his behavior, which led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD 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 3 March 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 AR20160002042 5