1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 April 2016 b. Date Received: 15 April 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 diagnosed with PTSD at the time of his discharge but he did not receive the proper help he requested. He was granted 50 percent disability for PTSD by VA. He was the best Soldier who earned an AGCM, but his PTSD started to worsen and he received less help. 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 has a post-service diagnosis of PTSD. As of 02 June 2017, his service-connected disability rating was 60 percent, though percentages are not broken out. In his first disability rating interview with the VA on 06 May 2015, the interviewer diagnosed both PTSD and Alcohol Use Disorder, but did not believe it possible to distinguish relative contributions of either to the applicant's disability. Despite his success in obtaining a post-service PTSD diagnosis, his diagnosis may well be inaccurate when judged against the totality of evidence. Further, the types of offenses he committed seem to predate his PTSD or, for example his plugging his iPhone into not just military computer but a computer used for classified information, have nothing to do with PTSD, nor did his assault on a policeman. His tendency to drink to excess also proceeded his PTSD diagnosis. The misconduct is not mitigated. 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 January 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disrespecting noncommissioned officers and a commissioned officer; failing to obey lawful orders of noncommissioned officers and military police officers; making offensive comments to German first responders; failing to maintain grooming standards; violating computer network policies; leaving his appointed place of duty; and failing to maintain control of his weapons system while deployed. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 February 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 November 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 3 years, 9 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (20 January 2011 to 24 May 2011) / HD RA (15 May 2011 to 11 November 2013) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (23 August 2013 to 12 January 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for disrespecting an NCO on numerous occasions; committing a cross-domain by plugging his I-Phone into a SIPR computer; being involved in a physical altercation; losing control of his weapon; maintaining weapons security; failing to return to his unit after his fast-class was over; being insubordinate; failing to maintain personal appearance and Army standards; failing to use the chain of command; not being recommended for the next promotion board; and being arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. MP Report, dated 18 October 2014, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for drunk and disorderly conduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 3 December 2014, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues and the examiner noted the application being treated by behavior health for depression and anxiety. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 January 2015, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The report, in pertinent part, found the applicant reported being severely distressed and fatigues, and that his mood was reported as angry and he had congruent affect. He had screened positive for PTSD on the 4Q screener, but further evaluation did not support a diagnosis of PTSD. From the behavioral health perspective, he was cleared for chapter separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 14 April 2016; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 January 2015; VA letter, dated 27 October 2015; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, and 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. 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's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved being diagnosed with PTSD were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's record indicates his behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. However, there is no record of VA granting 50 percent disability for service-connected PTSD. The applicant's documentary evidence, instead, shows that the applicant was granted 60 percent combined service-connected evaluation. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. Regarding the applicant's contentions that he was diagnosed with PTSD at the time of his discharge but he did not receive the proper help he requested, the record of evidence shows he was receiving behavioral health treatment as the time of his discharge, and the record further shows that although he screened positive for PTSD, further evaluation did not support a diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant contends he was the best Soldier who received an AGCM. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 AR20160008156 3