1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 May 2016 b. Date Received: 13 June 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade would improve his quality of life and help with better employment, housing and education. He was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of being exposed to hostile fire, seeing the death of allies and enemies; lost friends and had to identify bodies. After redeployment he had a difficult time readjusting, he was on edge and had trouble sleeping. His command was aware of his sleeping issue and chose not to assist him. Per the Board's Medical Officer, the applicant is seeking an upgrade to his discharge based on a post-service diagnosis of PTSD that he has related to trauma from combat during his deployment to Iraq. During his service he did not have behavioral health visits for problems other than Insomnia and alcohol. In all, he saw behavioral health twice for sleep problems during his active duty service. He did not have behavioral health diagnoses in AHLTA other than Insomnia and Lack of sleep. The JLV included diagnoses of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. On 19 September 2007, he was seen at the VA. At that time, he took a PTSD screen and was negative, denying that he had nightmares, avoidant symptoms, symptoms of hypervigilance, or of strong emotion reactivity. In a visit on 21 November 2007, he claimed a large number of PTSD and combat experience in Iraq. In a note on 18 May 2016, he claimed multiple exposures to blasts from explosives; however, in 2006, he completed a post- deployment survey. In it he denied injuries from fragments, bullets, vehicular accidents, blasts, falls and claimed he had no concussive incidents. At that time he was rated as having "No TBI." His pre-discharge Mental Status Evaluation on 05 April 2007 cleared him for administrative discharge, judged him to meet Army retention standards, and did not judge him to need further evaluation or diagnose any psychiatric disorders. His pre-discharge Medical Exam on 28 March 2007 noted no psychiatric complains and showed a profile of 111111. The applicant himself on 28 March 2007 only complained of lack of sleep as a psychiatric symptom, and denied nervous trouble, memory problems, depression or excessive worry, and illegal drug use. The applicant reports from the time of his misconduct are inconsistent with most of his post-service reports. There is insufficient evidence to hold that PTSD or other behavioral health problems that he is now being treated for had a role in his numerous instance of misconduct during his Army service. Hence they do not mitigate his misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 08 September 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: 25 July 2007 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 June 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; failing to report on time and to his prescribed place of duty on several occasions; being late to guard duty on several occasions; wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21; failing two record APFT's; and sleeping while on duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 June 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, however, the election of rights memorandum indicate he waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 July 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 September 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68J10, Medical Logistics Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 28 November 2005 to 3 November 2006 f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 22 March 2007, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (22 February 2007); and he was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he negligently failed to properly maintain his Class A's, as it was his duty to do (13 February 2007); forfeiture of $ 650 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 April 2007, relates the applicant was psychologically cleared for administrative separation. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being recommended for separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 28 March 2007, shows that the applicant's physician noted he was having trouble with insomnia. VA rating decision, dated 11 June 2014, indicates the applicant was granted a service connection for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as post traumatic stress disorder) and granted a 30 percent disabling rating effective, 4 December 2012. VA Progress notes, dated 15 February 2017, revealed that a diagnosis based on DSMV criteria, shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, mood disorder, psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS), depression NOS and anxiety NOS. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214; VA rating decision (four pages); US House of Representatives, consent for release of personal records; Radiology Reports (six pages); and progress notes (19 pages). 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 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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." "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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, an upgrade would improve his quality of life and help with better employment, housing and education. 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 Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant further contends, he was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of being exposed to hostile fire, seeing the death of allies and enemies; lost friends and had to identify bodies; and after redeployment he had a difficult time readjusting, he was on edge and had trouble sleeping. The applicant submitted VA documents which revealed a diagnosis of PTSD, mood disorder, psychosis NOS, depression NOS and anxiety NOS. However, at the time of separation the applicant's Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 April 2007, indicated the applicant was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant also contends, his command was aware of his sleeping issue and chose not toassist him. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. 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 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 08 September 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 AR20160010952 1