1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2016 b. Date Received: 22 August 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he excelled at all of his duties. He was recognized in basic training and AIT. He was third in his class. If not for his PTSD, he would still be serving. His issues started at his first duty station and with his first sergeant. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a partially mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the reasons leading to an early separation. A review of military medical records indicated SM completed a mental status evaluation as part of his chapter eval (for lying, stealing, and going AWOL) and was diagnosed with an Adjustment disorder; however, this condition is not mitigating for the altering documents misconduct. A review of VA records has no diagnosis of PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 2018, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 December 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 November 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, to wit: from 19 March 2005 to 31 May 2005, and from 20 June 2005 to 29 July 2005, he was AWOL; for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 30 September 2005, 1 October 2005, 17 October 2005, 22 October 2005, and 23 October 2005; and on 26 October 2005, he unlawfully altered four different public records on the Electronic Military Personnel data system. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 29 November 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 29 November 2005 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 December 2005 (GCMCA) / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 October 2004 / 5 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist (not noted on DD Form 214 / 11 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR; GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to conduct extra duty on numerous occasions; disobeying a lawful order on numerous occasions; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; being moved to a new section but still receiving a summarized Article 15; and falsifying government documents. FG Article 15, dated 15 September 2005, for being AWOL on 30 June 2005, until 29 July 2005. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months and 45 days of extra duty. Report of Result of Trial indicates that on 4 November 2005, the applicant was found guilty of the following charges and its specification(s), and received a sentence of $823 pay per month for one month and 30 days of confinement: Charge I, five specifications of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for failing to go to his appointed of duty at the prescribed time on 30 September 2005, 1 October 2005, 17 October 2005, 22 October 2005, and 23 October 2005. Charge II, four specifications of violating Article 134, UCMJ for willfully and unlawfully altered four separate public records on 26 October 2005. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 November 2005, indicates the applicant was responsible for his actions and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in legal and administrative proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 55 days (AWOL: 30 June 2005 to 29 July 2005, for 30 days, and 4 November 2005 to 28 November 2005, for 25 days) / applicant returned to his unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 31 October 2005, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 18 July 2016; DD Form 214; and congressional correspondence. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12b 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved having PTSD symptoms, were carefully considered. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the medical records showing a diagnosis of PTSD or medical condition relating to behavioral health), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends that he began having issues at his first duty station and with his first sergeant 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 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 January 2018, 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 AR20160014909 5