1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 September 2016 b. Date Received: 19 September 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 recently received a letter from the VA, which reflected that his discharge had been changed to honorable. He assumed his DD Form 214 would be updated to reflect this change, but when he requested a copy of his DD Form 214, he discovered that it had not been updated. He states that he mistakenly discarded the paperwork that he received from the VA. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, including the applicant's case file, AHLTA and JLV. AHLTA notes indicate applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment DO and Partner Relational Problems. VA notes indicate applicant is 30% SC for PTSD. Based on the available information, applicant has a BH diagnosis, PTSD, which is mitigating for some of his offenses. As PTSD is associated with problems with authority figures, there is a nexus between his PTSD and his disobeying commands. PTSD is not mitigating for being derelict in the performance of duties, having a prohibited relationship with subordinates, making false official statements or wrongfully having sexual relations with a married woman, not his wife. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 December 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 June 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 April 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 17 April 2008, the applicant received a Summary Court-Martial for disobeying the lawful commands of his commander to not have contact with the wife of another Soldier and to not leave Fort Drum; for being derelict in the performance of his duties; for violating a lawful general regulation by having prohibited relationships with subordinates; for making false official statements; and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman, not his wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 May 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 May 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 November 2006 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman / 5 years, 6 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 June 2002 - 23 September 2005 / HD RA, 24 September 2005 - 2 November 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (5 August 2003 - 1 May 2004), Iraq (10 August 2005 - 18 July 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, ICM-2CS, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 May 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 17 April 2008, reflects the applicant was charged with three specifications of violation of Article 90, UCMJ; four specifications of violation of Article 92, UCMJ; two specifications of violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and, one specification of violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The pleas and findings are as follows: Violation of Article 90: Willfully disobeyed a lawful command: 3 January and 27 February 2008; Guilty, consistent with the plea. 21 and 27 February 2008; Guilty, consistent with the plea. 25 and 27 February 2008; Guilty, not consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 92: Derelict in the performance of his duties (17 February 2008): Guilty, to a lesser Charge, Article 80. Violation of a lawful general regulation on 8 November 2007 and 12 February; 1 January and 10 February 2008; and, 21 December 2007 and 31 January 2008; Guilty, to a lesser Charge, Article 80. Violation of Article 107: Making a false official statement on 3 January and 17 February 2008; Guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 134: Wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife (8 November 2007 and 17 February 2008); Guilty, consistent with the plea. The sentenced adjudged: Forfeiture $1,498.00 pay for one month; reduction to E-4; and, restriction for two months. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (Axis I). 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 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. 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 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 on Active Duty. The applicant's issue about an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. Honorable service as determined by the Veteran's Administration for the purposes of receiving veteran's benefits, has no determination on the characterization of service directed by the separation authority at the time of his discharge. 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 8 December 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 AR20160016156 1