1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 February 2016 b. Date Received: 10 February 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, his discharge was inequitable and should indicate it was honorable. He received numerous awards, most notably an Army Achievement Medal for saving the life of a civilian that was shot while at the military shoppette. Due to the traumatic experience of being shot at, the applicant contends that he was receiving treatment for PTSD and anxiety from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center (WBAMC) and Richard Roudenbush VAMC. He further contends that he was harassed for going to those appointments and that he later received a Facebook message from the NCO, SGT M., apologizing for treating him harshly. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review in 2014. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. Although the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation, he had a significant clinical history of depression, anxiety, and delusional disorders and was being regularly followed by behavioral health to include having profiles for mental health concerns and an inpatient hospitalization. It appears the applicant did not meet medical retention standards IAW AR 40- 501 at the time of separation and that consideration for a separation through medical channels was warranted. A review of medical records revealed diagnoses of Delusional Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety. A Medical Evaluation Board was recommended by several providers to Command due to concerns that there were underlying mental health concerns contributing to misconduct; however, Command did not consider these recommendations. Medical record dated 12 March 2013 indicated the applicant's provider had contacted his Command about considering a Chapter 5-17. Command reported several concerns they had about the applicant to include difficulty following simple directions (tucking in bootlaces), staring at doors, washing and wiping spots on windows repetitively, displaying odd behaviors in parking lots, and generally needed supervision; however, they did not want to consider a Chapter 5-17 as an option because they were concerned about the applicant getting out and having benefits. Provider advised Command that the applicant does require continuing services to address mental health condition, particularly due to increased delusional behaviors. The applicant had reported hearing voices and that he fidgets with his rank insignia due to believing it was a deactivator that deactivated people. Other medical progress notes indicated the applicant has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, ETOH abuse-in remission, Personality disorder NOS (primarily borderline traits), psychotic disorder, schizoaffective disorder and had a history of self-mutilation (cutting and picking). In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the applicant's discharge was improper based on his length and quality of service, the command's arbitrary and capricious actions, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. in-service OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. (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: 20 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to report on divers occasions (3 July 2012; 6 August 2012; 14, 15, and 31 January 2013; 5 and 26 February 2013); failed to obey a lawful order (9 March 2013); and, disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer (28 February 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 May 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 May 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 September 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Baccalaureate Degree / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Healthcare Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 14 February 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of a telephonic report notifying the military desk of a medical emergency. Investigation determined that the applicant was having delusions of visiting an inmate that did not exist and that the applicant had not taken his medication for the day. He was transported by ems to WBAMC. Memorandum, dated 21 February 2013, Subject: Report of Commander's Inquiry, reflects a commander's inquiry was conducted by the appointed investigating officer (IO), 2LT J.B., into possible unbecoming behavior by the applicant. The analysis stated that the applicant had consistently shown a pattern of misconduct and having basic knowledge of medical based prescriptions, it was of the IO's opinion that the applicant manipulated the Army's system to find loop holes for his unbecoming behavior. The IO further stated that the applicant fabricated a story in order to avoid disciplinary actions; therefore, the IO recommended that the applicant be considered for UCMJ actions for his misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 27 February 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (5 February 2013) and being disrespectful toward an NCO (19 December 2012). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $396 pay per month for one month, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. (SECOND) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 April 2013, reflects the applicant had been deemed fit for full duty, including deployment. He was capable of understanding and participating in administrative proceedings; can appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements (i.e., does not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board). The applicant received an (Axis I) diagnosis of "No psychiatric diagnosis or condition." The applicant was cleared by behavioral to continue with administrative behavioral proceedings under Chapter 14-12b. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for his acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: (INITIAL) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 March 2013, reflects the applicant was evaluated as a result of a hospital discharge. The applicant was deemed as possibly non-deployable due to prescribed medications; command surgeon waiver is not recommended; requiring temporary duty limitations and will likely require behavioral health treatment to be restore to full duty; and unfit due to a personality disorder or other mental condition that does not amount to a medical disability. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder, Mixed Disturbance in Emotions and Conduct; HX Alcohol Abuse, (Axis II) Cluster B traits, and (Axis III) Obesity. Report of Medical History, dated 8 April 2013, reflects the medical examiner indicated that the applicant reported a long history of depression, anxiety, and delusional disorders that was currently being followed by behavioral health. It also noted a recent inpatient stay at WBAMC's psychiatric ward. Progress Notes reflects the applicant has the following diagnoses (date of notes): (Axis I) paranoid schizophrenia, ETOH abuse-in remission / (Axis II) Personality d/o NOS (primarily borderline traits) / (Axis IV) hx of self-mutilation (cutting and picking) (27 September 2013) psychotic disorder (20 December 2013) personality disorder (16 May 2014) paranoid schizophrenia (16 May 2014) schizoaffective disorder (2 December 2015) 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; copy of Facebook messenger; and excerpts of medical records. 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. 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 have been retained. The applicant contends that he had honorable service, which included receiving an Army Achievement Medal for saving the life of a civilian that was shot while at the military shoppette. The Army Achievement Award in which the applicant states he received for his heroic act was not found in his record and no evidence (i.e. military police report, news article, or medical report) to support the applicant's contention has been submitted. However, the applicant's overall service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings was carefully considered. The applicant also contends that he was receiving treatment for PTSD and anxiety from WBAMC and Richard Roudenbush VAMC for PTSD due to his traumatic experience of being shot at. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 2 April 2013, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant further contends that he was harrased for going to his behavioral health appointments; 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. Furthermore, the copy of the facebook message the applicant provided is vague and does not provide sufficient evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 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 28 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the applicant's discharge was improper based on his length and quality of service, the command's arbitrary and capricious actions, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. in-service OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3 e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFF/ No Change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160004575 6