1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 April 2016 b. Date Received: 2 May 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was unfair because he had three more months before his contract was about to expire. The applicant does not believe that he should have lost all of his benefits and that it was an awfully severe punishment considering that he fought for his country, deployed to Afghanistan, earned a Good Conduct Medal, and that this was the only time he was ever in trouble before. The applicant contends that he chose the Chapter 10 because he was scared of getting court martialed and all the stress of waiting for the investigation to end, not knowing what was going to happen to him. The applicant felt his own people were against him. The applicant states that although being enlisted was not the easiest thing in his life, he did enjoy it. He had a hard time fitting in with his fellow Soldiers, finding it difficult to be around people. The applicant states that he began to seek help for anxiety, depression, and sleep issues. He was prescribed several medications that helped him with his behavioral health (BH) issues. In the applicant's self-authored statement, he chronicles his deployment, how he dealt with his BH issues, his injury that led to his redeployment, finding a girlfriend, and the events that led to his discharge. (Note: Per the applicant's representative, Ms. X, Nurse Practitioner) The applicant was unclear of the ramifications of the characterization of service he received at the time of his discharge. The reporting party (RP) continued to pursue a relationship with the applicant after the occurrence and that per the investigation, the RP took medications from the applicant on her own volition or without coercion for her anxiety over a breakup with her boyfriend. Further referring to the investigatory report that cites the RP's clinical assessment, which includes her medical history, her sexual past, and her adolescent upbringing. Ms. X states that the applicant has extensive Army counseling notes reporting that he is anxious and lonely, with no reports of inappropriate behavior, thoughts of injury to others. Also stating that the applicant has never had any accusations or convictions for sexual or other inappropriate behavior. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. A review of the military electronic medical records indicated diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Phase of Life Problems, and Dependent and Avoidant Personality Traits. Behavioral health treatment focused on relationship stressors, feeling homesick and lonely, and stress related to legal investigation for an alleged rape. The applicant was accused of giving a 15 year old female a clonazepam pill prior to intercourse. The applicant believed female was 25, not 15 years old. Case was dropped by German officials. Because case involved misuse of medication, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP treatment in April 2013. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 23 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: NIF (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 9 September 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 June 2009 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 3 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (21 July 2011 to 13 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders 255-0001, dated 12 September 2013, reflects the applicant was discharged from the US Army effective 23 September 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with attachments 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was the only time he was ever in trouble. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant has expressed his desire to have access to veteran's benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included a combat tour to Afghanistan. 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's contentions regarding his discharge being unfair, he was on prescription medication for behavioral health issues, and the fact that he chose the Chapter 10 because he was scared of getting court martialed was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. If the applicant desires a personal appearance, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record. The applicant will need to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Based on the available record, the discharge appears consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160008997 1