1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 August 2016 b. Date Received: 2 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because-of an isolated incident that occurred the last four months of service. He was flagged which caused him to have anxiety and other mental issues. While on convalescent leave he was harassed by his chain of command for not being able to conduct physical training with the unit. He was awaiting chapter for weight control, which his unit prolonged causing him several personal issues at home and work. His chain of command did not full fill their duty in the discharge process causing him to have an emotional breakdown that led to him to go AWOL. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case file, AHLTA, JLV and applicant-provided medical documentation were reviewed. AHLTA indicates applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depression, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depression, Cannabis Abuse. Much of his depression and anxiety symptoms appear to be due to his unhappiness with the way his unit treated him and his overall dissatisfaction with the Army. Applicant was initially going to be discharged for being overweight. After this determination was made, he reported to BH that his unit members started treating him like a bad soldier when, in fact, he was a good soldier who was overweight. Much of his BH treatment involved supportive psychotherapy to help him cope with his unit. He was also treated with antidepressants and antianxiety meds for his depression and anxiety. He had PCL score of 54 in May 2012. Further assessment determined he did not meet criteria for PTSD and he was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS. Applicant provided civilian medical documentation consists of a mental health progress note from W. Cleaves, MD of Corpus Christi, Tx. Dr. Cleaves entered the following as the applicant's diagnoses: Chronic, episodic depression, Anxiety and PTSD. However, review of his assessment indicates that he did not delineate which criteria for PTSD the applicant met. The symptoms described in the assessment are primarily depression and anxiety. In his conclusion, Dr. Cleaves states "He (ie-the applicant) is not schizophrenic, not suicidal, not psychotic. He has a chronic anxiety disorder and probably posttraumatic stress disorder." Applicant's VA records indicate he has been diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified by the VA. While the applicant has submitted civilian medical documentation which diagnoses the applicant with PTSD as well as chronic depression and anxiety, there is no documentation of what PTSD symptoms the applicant has or which DSM-V PTSD criteria the applicant meets. Neither the VA nor the military has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. As such, there is insufficient evidence at this time to establish the diagnosis of PTSD. Based on the currently available medical documentation, the applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health diagnosis. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 November 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 17 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 17 May 2013, the applicant was charged with the following offenses; being AWOL (11 February 2013 until 3 May 2013); having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Secretary of the Army, J.M.M., an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully possessing a controlled substance analogues and introducing a controlled substance analogues into an installation under the control of the Army (14 November 2012); fail to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing drug abuse paraphernalia (14 November 2012); and wrongful use of marijuana between (3 April 2013 and 3 May 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 May 2013, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 May 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 October 2010 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 5 years, 3 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 January 2008 to 4 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 14 March 2010 to 7 March 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, VUA g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation, dated 20 November 2012, revealed the applicant was under investigation for failing to obey a general order. Positive urinalysis test coded IO (Inspection Other), dated 3 May 2013, for THC. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and debt avoidance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 82 days (11 February 2013 until 2 May 2013), apprehended by civil authorities; and civilian confinement for 8 days (7 May 2013 until 15 May 2013). Total lost time 90 days. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Texas A & M University, Psychological Disability Verification Form, dated shows that information was requested for an Axis I diagnosis for chronic episodic depression, Axis II, anxiety and Axis III, PTSD (four pages). Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 29 July 2013, relates the applicant while on active duty had reported past anxiety and depression issues and prescribed medication for treatment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); support statement; DD Form 214; five counseling statements regarding weight control; request for administrative separation, Chapter 18; two body fat content worksheets; job qualifications information for applicant; two recommendations for convalescent leave memorandum; two weight control program memoranda; and mandatory pre chapter G.I. Bill benefits counseling / briefing; and medical / mental health documents (54) 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 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 although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents several acts of significant achievement and valor to include combat service however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was inequitable because of an isolated incident that occurred the last four months of service. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, he was flagged which caused him to have anxiety and other mental issues. The applicant bears the burden of presentating substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his flag caused him to have anxiety and other mental issues. The applicant also contends, while on convalescent leave he was harassed by his chain of command for not being able to conduct physical training with the unit. Although the applicant alleges that he was a victim of harassment during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant additionally contends, he was awaiting chapter for weight control, which his unit prolonged causing him several personal issues at home and work. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, his chain of command did not fulfill their duty in the discharge process causing him to have an emotional breakdown that led to him to go AWOL. 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 third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, this statement provided no evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 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 17 November 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 AR20160016613 4