1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 September 2016 b. Date Received: 18 October 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was a highly respected Soldier who was described by his superior officers as professional, ethical, and diligent. These same officers likewise stated that they would welcome the chance to work with the applicant because of these very qualities. His superiors likewise noted that the punishment that the applicant received was excessive, and that his actions had in fact been sanctioned on more than one occasion and may have led to his unwittingly overstepping his boundaries. Accordingly, as SFC M noted, "[We] mentor our Soldiers to know that mistakes can be recovered from and atoned for." The Board has the opportunity to exemplify that ideology by granting the applicant's clemency request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and by changing the narrative reason for his separation to miscellaneous. 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 did not have a medical or behavioral health condition. A review of military medical records indicated diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder; however, this behavioral health condition is not reasonably related to the misconduct of larceny. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 May 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 March 2014, he was convicted in a Federal Court, he was found guilty of one Specification of Article 108, Destruction of Government Property, and eight specifications of Article 121, Larceny of the UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 June 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 May 2012 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / Associate's Degree / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 4 years, 4 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 February 2010 - 3 May 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial (DD Form 2707-1), dated 4 March 2014, reflects the following charges, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 108, UCMJ: On 30 July 2013, without proper authority, dispose of by throwing it in the trash, an M2 compass, of a value of about $200, military property of the United Stales. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification I: between on or about 1 May 2012 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal a padlock, military property, of a value of more than $500, the property of the United States Army. Not Guilty, Dismissed by military judge. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification II: between on or about 13 July 2011 and between on or about 30 July 2013, steal an electric drill set, eight mechanical pencils, and a Gerber cleaning tool, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification III: Between on or about 1 August 2012 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal 36 Chem Lights and a weapons cleaning kit, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification IV: Between on or about 20 August 2011 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal 40 Document Protectors, a Stencil Set, and 15 Memorandum Books, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification V: Between on or about 1 October 2011 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal two M2 compasses, a flatware set, a dusting mop head, two Spiral Memo books, and two Skill craft Aviator Pens, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification VI: Between on or about 1 January 2013 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal a padlock, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification VII: Between on or about 1 March 2012 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal a stapler, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Specification VIII: Between on or about I August 2011 and on or about 30 July 2013, steal markers, binders, pressure sensitive tape, index cards, mechanical pencils, markers and pens, notepads, and a ruler, military property, of a value of less than $500, the property of the United States Army. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1; fine of $2,400; confinement for 30 days if fine is not paid; and, a reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 April 2014, 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, Major Depressive Disorder (Axis I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied legal brief. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 10 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 AR20160019144 1