1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 October 2016 b. Date Received: 11 October 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, he was a good Soldier that had a minor slip; he made rank fast and was an outstanding NCO and his NCOERs reflect the same. He was going through a lot at the time, thought he could handle it on his own and allowed it to affect his work in a negative way. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. In summary, SMs PTSD and trauma exposure contributed to nightmares, significant sleep difficulties, and multiple FTRs and lateness and his avoidance behaviors can be associated with AWOL; therefore, there is a nexus between this applicant’s misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service PTSD diagnosis with a 60% rating from the VA), a prior period of honorable service and homelessness. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 24 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 April 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he established a pattern of misconduct for failing to report and being absent without leave; he received multiple Articles 15 as a result; and specifically he received a FG Article 15 for AWOL (11 March 2015) and a FG Article 15 for seven FTR's (4 February 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 April 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 22 April 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 21 May 2015, the applicant consulted with legal counsel again, he voluntarily and conditional waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 June 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 October 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: SGT / 19D28, Cavalry Scout / 6 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 March 2009 to 5 October 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 26 May 2011 to 9 January 2012 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2012 to 8 February 2012, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 4 February 2015, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x7 (8 December 2014, 9 December 2014, 19 December 2014, 5 January 2015, 6 January 2015, 8 January 2015 and 15 January 2015); reduction to SPC / E-4 (suspended), forfeiture of $1,175.00 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days (30 days suspended) and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 March 2015, revealed that the applicant was been screened for PTSD and mTBI and both screens were negative. He was psychologically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. On 6 March 2015, the suspension of punishment of reduction to SPC / E-4, forfeiture of $1,175.00 pay for two months and extra duty for 30 days, was vacated for the new offense of without authority, absented himself from his unit between (20 February 2015 until 22 February 2015). FG Article 15, dated 11 March 2015, for without authority, absented himself from his unit between (20 February 2015 until 22 February 2015); reduction to PFC / E-3, forfeiture of $1,027.00 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 27 March 2015, relates the applicant was diagnosed with insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); ARCOM Citation; recommendation for award (two pages); and two NCOERs. 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 14-12b 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. 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 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 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 seeks relief contending, he was a good Soldier that had a minor slip; he made rank fast and was an outstanding NCO and his NCOERs reflect the same. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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 going through a lot at the time, thought he could handle it on his own and allowed it to affect his work in a negative way. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. 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 3 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service PTSD diagnosis with a 60% rating from the VA), a prior period of honorable service and homelessness. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore Grade to: 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 AR20160017585 1