1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 July 2016 b. Date Received: 13 October 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant through legal counsel 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 as a means of being able to receive educational benefits, opportunities for finding more meaningful employment, and establishing a productive life following his service. The applicant contends he is a Global War on Terrorism combat veteran who served honorable for roughly three and a half years with no incidents of misconduct prior to the minor acts that led to his general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He contends he was inequitably discharge for violating Article 87 of the UCMJ which requires that a movement be missed through neglect or design. He missed a movement as a result of his reliance on a medical diagnosis and as a result of significant and well-documented mental health disorders. DoD Instruction 6490.07 would have prohibited him from deploying with his unit, and there was substantial doubt that he would have received the same discharge classification if DoD Instruction 6490.07 had been considered during separation proceedings. He contends because his command initiated the separation process beginning 22 February 2011, the discharging body should not have considered alleged misconduct occurring after that date in determining the appropriated discharge classification. He believes otherwise his laudable military and combat service renders his general (under honorable conditions) discharge inequitably harsh. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with OBH. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, OBH is not a likely cause of misconduct. Therefore, a nexus between the behavioral condition and the misconduct is not likely. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 April 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: receiving a Field Grade Article 15 adjudicated on 17 February 2011 for three missed movements; and Being absent without leave from 29 March 2011 until his return on 6 April 2011 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 April 2007 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 4 years, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 December 2008 to 20 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Department of Defense Instruction (Number 6490.07), dated 5 February 2010, reference Deployment-Limiting Medical Conditions for Service Members and DoD Civilian Employees. Physical Profile, dated 13 October 2010, which give the applicant a Temporary Profile with an expiration date of 10 January 2011. The profile indicated (the applicant was non-deployable IAW DOD Guidelines for Deployment limiting psychiatric conditions and medications. No PCS until stable on this medication; and command should support the applicant in completing his medical appointments.) FG, Article 15, dated 17 February 2011, for missing movement on 8 October 2010 x2 and on 21 October 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction the E-3, forfeiture of $1,061 pay per months for two months; 45 days extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 8 days (29 March 2011 to 5 April 2011) / surrendered j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care document, dated 23 March 2011, shows the applicant suffered with chronic problems with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, depression, adjustment insomnia, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated March 2011, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I for (adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, occupational problems). It was noted that there was no psychiatric conditions that would prohibit him from any administrative action deemed appropriated by his chain of command. The applicant screened for TBI and PTSD. He denied experiencing a traumatic event and/or a blow to the head during his military service. He was cleared from a mental health standpoint for administrative action. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; and exhibits A-D (applicant's affidavit, service records excerpts, medical evaluations excerpts, and separation excerpts) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 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 through legal counsel 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 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 seeks relief contending he is a Global War on Terrorism combat veteran who served honorable for roughly three and a half years with no incidents of misconduct prior to the minor acts that led to his general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. He contends he was inequitably discharge for violating Article 87 of the UCMJ which requires that a movement be missed through neglect or design. He missed a movement as a result of his reliance on a medical diagnosis and as a result of significant and well-documented mental health disorders. DoD Instruction 6490.07 would have prohibited him from deploying with his unit, and there was substantial doubt that he would have received the same discharge classification if DoD Instruction 6490.07 had been considered during separation proceedings. Evidence in the records shows the applicant was being prescribed sedating psychiatric medications and received medical instruction stating he was non-deployable, could not carry and fire his weapon, and required at least nine hours of sleep each night due to his medications. On 22 September 2010, he received an Individual Sick Slip stating that he could not engage in Airborne or live fire operations for two weeks, which expired on 6 October 2010. On 13 October 2010 he received a Physical Profile, which gave the applicant a Temporary Profile with an expiration date of 10 January 2011. The profile indicated the applicant was non- deployable IAW DOD Guidelines for Deployment limiting psychiatric conditions and medications. No PCS until stable on this medication; and command should support the applicant in completing his medical appointments. He contends because his command initiated the separation process beginning 22 February 2011, the discharging body should not have considered alleged misconduct occurring after that date in determining the appropriated discharge classification. He believes his otherwise laudable military and combat service renders his general (under honorable conditions) discharge inequitably harsh. The contention was noted; the letter of intent to chapter was dated 22 February 2011; however, separation action was not initiated against the applicant until 6 April 2011, as acknowledge by the applicant's signature on the acknowledging of separation memorandum. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge as a means of being able to receive educational benefits, opportunities for finding more meaningful employment, and establishing a productive life following his service. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 11 April 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. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code 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 AR20160017887 4