1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 April 2016 b. Date Received: 2 May 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 not mentally aware of what was going on when he was charged with aggravated assault. Prior to taking the plea for his charges, the applicant states that he was diagnosed with paranoia schizophrenia and anxiety. Later, after being released, the applicant states he was diagnosed with PTSD and extends his apologies for being unable to control his actions prior to his diagnosis. 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. A review of the military electronic medical records indicated the applicant was diagnosed while in service with Paranoid Schizophrenia. He first reported depression, paranoia, and disorganized thoughts on 28 November 2011. The applicant reported first disclosing paranoid thoughts to Combat Stress while deployed but did not receive any treatment. Upon returning from deployment, he was told not much could be done about paranoia unless it was actively happening and no treatment was started. Medical notes indicated the applicant had a history of hospitalization for psychosis, paranoia, and suicidal ideation; however hospitalization dates are unknown. Medical provider on 18 June 2012 indicated the applicant was having a clear psychotic break and that legal issues were likely influenced by his paranoia. He was placed on weapons restriction and recommended for an MEB, which provider indicated Command was supportive of. Despite this recommendation, there were no further notes regarding MEB. Because Psychosis, specifically Schizophrenia can be associated with disorganized thoughts and behaviors, impaired insight and judgment, aggressive behaviors, and impulsivity, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. VA also records confirmed diagnosis of and treatment for Paranoid Schizophrenia. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 May 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. the applicant should have been medically discharged by MEB), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: at or near Milan, Tennessee, committed domestic assault and reckless endangerment, failed to yield the right of way resulting in injury, failed to render aid, failed to maintain insurance, committed disorder conduct, and committed theft under $500 (17 January 2012); went AWOL on three occasions (30 November to on or about December 2010 [sic], 12 May to 18 June 2012; and 10 July to 13 July 2012); and, found to be in contempt of court (13 July 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Memorandum For Record, dated 14 December 2012, authored by the Brigade Judge Advocate, indicates the applicant was incarcerated at the time separation proceedings were initiated. The applicant was notified in person on 2 October 2012 by his company commander. When the applicant's jail time was extended, his trial defense lawyer consulted him by phone on 28 November 2012. The applicant was given ample time, as late as 14 December 2012, to submit written matters for his administrative separation action. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 December 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer / 2 years, 4 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 May 2011 to 23 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 February 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (16 and 22 November 2010) and for without authority absenting himself from his unit (30 November to 21 December 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. State Warrant, Affidavit of Complaint, written by Officer J.F. of the Milan Police Department, reflects that on 17 January 2012 the applicant was involved in a vehicle accident, he had no proof of insurance, the officer smelled alcohol on the applicant and when asked, the applicant confirmed he had two beers, and upon inventorying the vehicle, the officer found a .22 LR with magazine and a box of .22 bullets. When the serial numbers were ran, the weapon was found to have been stolen. The applicant was charged for committing the following offenses: domestic assault reckless endangerment failed to yield right of way resulting in injury failed to render aid financial responsibility disorderly conduct theft under $500 Gibson County Sheriff Department (Intake), booking #99125, arrest date 13 July 2012, indicates the applicant was booked for "capias (contempt of court)." Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 March 2012, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy Memo 10-040; results were negative. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared. Numerous DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 21 December 2010 and 13 July 2013, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty" to "AWOL," effective 30 November 2010 From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 December 2010 From "PDY" to "Civilian Confinement (CCA)," effective 18 January 2012 From "CCA" to "PDY," effective 20 January 2012 From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 1 May 2012 From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 1 May 2012 From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 12 May 2012 From "AWOL" to "Hospitalization," effective 13 May 2012 From "Hospitalization" to "PDY," effective 18 June 2012 From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 10 July 2012 From "AWOL" to "CCA," effective 13 July 2012 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: (Note: The DD Form 214 does not accurately reflect the time lost as indicated by the DA Forms 4187 found in the applicant's case separation file.) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and self-authored statement 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 was not mentally aware of what was going on when he was charged with aggravated assault. Further contending that he was later diagnosed with paranoia schizophrenia, anxiety, and ultimately PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 31 May 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. the applicant should have been medically discharged by MEB), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20160009008 4