1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 March 2016 b. Date Received: 31 March 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable condition). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he does not believe his current characterization of service is fair nor is it indicative of his entire time in the Army. He contends his pattern of misconduct took place over a period of approximately six months. This followed his second deployment to Iraq, which he witnessed four of his fellow Soldiers being killed. After this deployment he then began to have nightmares, and other symptoms of PTSD. He began to drink as a way of self-medicating. He sought psychiatric help and enrolled in the ASAP on his own accord. He contends he had been in the Army for five years before his second deployment and prior to this deployment he had no major problems. He had previously received the AGCM as well as other citations. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the available records at the time of review, the applicant has two mitigating Behavioral Health Conditions (PTSD and TBI) for the misconduct leading to his discharge from the Army. As PTSD is associated with anger and irritability toward authority figures, there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and the offenses of disrespectfulness towards officer and NCOs and disobedience of orders. Additionally, the applicant suffers from disinhibition as a result of his head injury which also contributes to disrespectfulness. The applicant's multiple failures to report are more likely than not also due to his PTSD: 8 of the 11 charges of Failure to Report are for not making morning PT training or morning formation. For a person with PTSD, insomnia is a serious issue. The records indicate that the applicant had severe insomnia which he self-medicated with alcohol. As such, these two factors more likely than not contributed to his morning failure to report charges. The remaining failures to report charges can also be explained by the applicant's PTSD as PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors. In conclusion, all of the applicant's offenses are mitigated by his severe PTSD and TBI. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 June 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is too harsh. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 70 percent service-connected VA rating (PTSD/TBI); in-service PTSD & TBI diagnosis) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record and is therefore inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 2 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 November 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on divers occasion in 2011 he failed to report to his place of duty (18 and 20 January 2011, 22 March 2011, 6 July 2011, 15 July 2011, 20 July 2011, and 21 July 2011; 14 September 2011, 15 September 2011, 28 September 2011, and 3 October 2011); Failed to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 19 May 2011; Was disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers SFC E.G. and SFC R.S., on 12 July 2011 and 21 August 2011; He was disrespectful to LTC J.W., on 22 September 2011; and On divers occasions in 2011 he failed to obey orders by a commissioned officer (22 September 2011, 25 September 2011, 28 September 2011, and 2 October 2011); (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 November 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 February 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / 13 years / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 5 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 March 2007 to 1 June 2008 and 10 October 2009 to 21 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, MUC, AGCM, ICM-4CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR- 2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 29 June 2011, for failing to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer not to drive his car until his new license plates came in the mail by wrongfully driving his car to a service station between 18 May 2011 and 19 May 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $455 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 14 days extra duty and restriction. Military Police Report, dated 21 August 2011, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, communicating a threat, and failing to obey general order (dereliction of duty and no contact order). Military Police Report, dated 21 September 2011, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer, disorderly conduct, resisting apprehension (military), and failure to obey order (appearance). On 24 October 2011, the applicant signed a Pretrial Agreement (Offer to Plead Guilty) to the charges that were pending against him. He also indicated he would accept an under other than honorable conditions discharge in the action initiated to separated him pursuant to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12 and to waive his right to demand a separation. In exchange for his action the convening authority agreed to avoid both a Special and General Court-Martial, thus eliminating the stigma of a federal conviction. Summary Court-Martial, dated 4 November 2011, for violation of Article 86; FTR/AWOL (x11); Article 89: disrespect to a commissioned officer; Article 90: disobeying a commissioned officer (x4); Article 91: disrespect to an noncommissioned officer (x2): and Article 134: breaking restriction. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $978 pay for one month, and confinement for 30 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Failure to report for duty x 2, 2 days (13 July 2011 to 14 July 2011 and 20 July 2011 to 21 July 2011) and Confinement 26 days (12 October 2011 to 7 November 2011) / released and returned to duty j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2011, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for post-traumatic stress disorder (by history); alcoholism (by history). It was noted in the remarks that the applicant was not psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. He was currently taking deployment-limiting medications. He had been diagnosed with a TBI from a combat-related incident. He had also been diagnosed with combat-related PTSD. He was undergoing an MEB. Should the MEB be referred to the PEB, the general courts-martial convening authority may had to decide the applicant ultimate disposition. The applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong and appeared to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative proceedings. The applicant was being treated by a psychiatrist with medication, but also needed psychological treatment for PTSD symptoms. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; and Discharge Summaries from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was noted in the discharge summaries that the applicant suffered with psychiatric disorders; post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, polysubstance (cannabis and alcohol) use disorder. Medical disorders migraine headaches (30 percent); post-traumatic stress disorder (30 percent); paralysis of sciatic nerve (10 percent); limited motion of arm (0 percent); knee conditions (0 percent); traumatic brain disease (0 percent). 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." "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 or general (under honorable condition). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. It should be noted; the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2011, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for post-traumatic stress disorder (by history); alcoholism (by history). The remarks section of the document shows the applicant was not psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. He was currently taking deployment-limiting medications. He had been diagnosed with a TBI from a combat-related incident. He had also been diagnosed with combat-related PTSD. He was undergoing an MEB. Also that should the MEB be referred to the PEB, the general courts-martial convening authority may have to decide the applicant's ultimate disposition. Based on the remarks comments in the Report of Mental Status evaluation, paragraph 1-33, AR 635-200 required the GCMCA to determine whether the Soldier should be processed through the disability system, rather than separated UP AR 635-200. The available record is void of the finding of the MEB. The GCMCA's determination to proceed with a PEB is based on finding the Soldier's medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination, or other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. The GCMCA's decision was not included in the separation proceedings. The applicant seeks relief contending that his current characterization of service is not fair nor is it indicative of his entire time in the Army. He contends his pattern of misconduct took place over a period of approximately six months. This followed his second deployment to Iraq, which he witnessed four of his fellow Soldiers being killed. After this deployment he then began to have nightmares, and other symptoms of PTSD. He began to drink as a way of self-medicating. He sought psychiatric help and enrolled in the ASAP on his own accord. He contends he had been in the Army for five years before his second deployment and prior to this deployment he had no major problems. He had previously received the AGCM as well as other citations. The applicant contentions were noted; the evidence in the record and that submitted by the applicant showing he suffered with PTSD and other medical issues were also noted. However, based on the partial documents in the record and the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 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 and the applicant is to be commended. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge at the time of discharge as shown by his incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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., in-service medical document) 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 16 June 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is too harsh. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 70 percent service-connected VA rating (PTSD/TBI); in-service PTSD & TBI diagnosis) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record and is therefore inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / 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 AR20160007140 5