1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 May 2016 b. Date Received: 13 May 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he had good service while in the Army with numerous accomplishments. Following his first deployment, the applicant got married, had a son, and deployed a month after his son was born. During his second deployment, the applicant states that he saw many hostile acts, was blown up multiple times by enemy improvised explosive devices, and while dealing with that, his wife was living with another man. Once the applicant returned from deployment, he attempted to fix his marriage. It was during this time, the applicant found out that he may not be the father of his son and that his wife was engaged to another man while she was living with the applicant. The applicant moved into the barracks and still continued to provide financial support in the sum of $886 a month for rent. The applicant's spouse demanded $1400 a month and threatened to go to his command. The applicant informed her that his command was already aware of their marital problems. The applicant's spouse went to his commander and made false allegations of an affair involving the applicant and his spouse's cousin. Subsequently, the applicant received punishment from his command. The applicant felt his life was crumbling and he had no one to talk to. He made a poor decision and regrets it every day. The applicant contends that he has been diagnosed with PTSD and TBI and sees a therapist every week. He requests an upgrade in order to receive medical treatment. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has a mitigating diagnosis (TBI) for his misconduct. The applicant has had two head injuries from IED blasts with one injury resulting in loss of consciousness. The effects of successive mild head injuries are cumulative in nature. In the applicant's case, his multiple head injuries more likely than not affected his judgment, reasoning and impulse control causing him to have difficulty with rational thinking when under severe stress which led to him going AWOL. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. 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. severe life stressors and diagnosis of PTSD like symptoms) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This Board action entails restoration of grade to E-5/SGT. (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: 16 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 22 July 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with violations of the UCMJ, Articles 86 and 91. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL (with two specifications) Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 July 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 13 April 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 4 years, 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 April 2007 to 3 April 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 December 2007 - 9 February 2009 and 23 March 2010 - 12 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ICM-4CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2010 thru 5 August 2011, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 15 June 2011, for disrespectful in deportment toward an NCO (4 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $ (illegible) pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Three Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 15 July 2011 From "AWOL" to "Dropped from Rolls (DFR)," effective 15 July 2011 From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 20 July 2011 DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 22 July 2011, described at the preceding paragraph 3c(2). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer; failing to follow orders; revocation of leave; failing to report; and, for being AWOL. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 29 days (AWOL, 18 June 2011 to 12 July 2011 and 15 July 2011 to 20 July 2011) / The applicant was apprehended. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with supporting documents listed in block 8. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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 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 that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends he has PTSD and needs an upgrade to receive medical treatment. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Character statement dated 23 April 2017 - 1 page b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): Victoria Stanley - wife - (W) 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. 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. severe life stressors and diagnosis of PTSD like symptoms) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This Board action entails restoration of grade to E-5/SGT. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore Grade to: E-5/SGT 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 AR20160009413 1