1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 June 2016 b. Date Received: 21 June 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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive his GI Bill benefits for college. The applicant believes because of the poor leadership he had while on active duty he was not allowed to perform his duties to his highest standards. He believes his leadership did not follow Army Regulation in the area to help him perform his duties. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 October 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 April 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failing two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests and being counseled on disrespect and a negative attitude on multiple separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived / 5 April 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 January 2010 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 3 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (16 April 2011 to 16 April 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NDSM, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards. FG Article 15, dated 7 February 2013, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x2 on 25 January 2013 and being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 25 January 2012 (13). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 52 days (15 February 2013 to 7 April 2013) / surrendered j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 January 2013, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I (309.4 Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct). It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciated the difference between right and wrong, and met medical retention requirements (i.e., did not qualify for a medical evaluation board). He was medically cleared for separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because of the unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending that because of the poor leadership he had while on active duty he was not allowed to perform his duties to his highest standards. He believes his leadership did not follow Army Regulation in the area to help him perform his duties. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was the result of poor leadership. It should be noted; before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive his GI Bill benefits for college. 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 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 4 October 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 AR20160011677 1