1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 March 2016 b. Date Received: 4 April 2016 c. Counsel: 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 for a pattern of misconduct. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, but was not afforded any type of treatment plan. He had a relatively high General Technical score and did well on his evaluations when his mood was "right." He did not have any lost time and all his charges stemmed from missing formations. His sleeping issue contributed to his problem, but when he went to sick call and asked for a sleep study he was refused. The sleep issues caused him to miss formations and then he became the "dirt-bag," which resulted in him becoming the scapegoat and was given the worse assignments. This then caused him to become angry and depressed, which caused more sleep issues and the pattern developed. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant (GT =95) had diagnoses in AHLTA of Adjustment Disorder, ADHD, Depression, Depressive Neurosis, Insomnia. The idea that he was not being treated for these is false, as he had prescriptions to assist him with his depression, anxiety, and sleep. His depressive symptoms were apparently made worse when his girlfriend decided to go to school rather than join him after he finished AIT. The JLV showed no VA contacts. His MSE on 21 December 2010, cleared him for administrative discharge and diagnosed him with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood. A pre-discharge medical exam on 14 December 2010, showed a S1 profile, which had been lowered from S2. The kinds of difficulties he had are not unusual for a person with a neurotic depression; however, it is very difficult to for this condition to separate blameworthy failings from excused failings. Although it is unfortunate that the applicant was and likely still is struggling with symptoms of anxiety and depression, his discharge seems apt in light of his repeated failings to meet relatively simple demands that might have been met, if he had mobilized his will as many depressed Soldiers do in similar circumstances. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 June 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: 23 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 13 separate occasions between on or about 25 August 2010 and 5 January 2011; and, failed to obey a direct order on five separate occasions between on or about 7 September 2010 and 16 December 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 February 2011, the applicant waived his rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 July 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 21E10, Construction Equipment Operator / 1 years, 8 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed; and, disobeying a lawful order; not in proper uniform; leaving his place of duty; disrespect toward an NCO; and, intent to separate from service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 21 December 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood (AXIS I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 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 on Active Duty. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to be treated for his condition. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. A careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 21 December 2010, the applicant underwent a behavioral health evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that although he was suffering from this condition, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. Further, 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 had good service. 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 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 7 June 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160007539 1