1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 October 2016 b. Date Received: 19 October 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that prior to the incidents, he had nothing short of a stellar record. He was promoted to sergeant within two years and he had already been recommended by his first sergeant to attend the staff sergeant promotion board. He received multiple awards for his hard work and service; he served two tours in Iraq; and, he was the second in charge tasked to oversee two other NCOs and two Soldiers. The incidents that led to his discharge, all happened shortly after returning from his second tour in 2010. During his second deployment, the applicant and his wife, decided to end their marriage. After his deployment, his divorce got very ugly and spending time with his children became nonexistent. This was a very emotional and confusing time in his life. During this time, he received orders to transfer to another unit and upon reporting to his new unit in October 2010, there was very little for him to do. He shared a work station with three Soldiers, while other lower ranking Soldiers had dedicated stations. In November 2010, one of his Soldiers, SPC C, was going through the reclassification process of her MOS. She gave him a signed document stating she had retaken the ASVAB, which included her new scores. The applicant entered the new scores into Emilpo. The next day the applicant was called to the Commander's and First Sergeant's office, where he encountered SPC C crying in the hallway. She kept telling the applicant that she was sorry. His command team, asked if he had updated her scores and accused him of knowing the document was forged. The applicant stated that he did input the scores, but did not know it was forged. After the applicant was informed that SPC C would be punished for stating it was her idea, the applicant said it was his idea, because he did not want his Soldier punished too harshly. His command team refused to listen to him and told him and informed him that he would be receiving an Article 15 for his alleged role and have his clearance revoked. The applicant states that he was dumbfounded and told them that it would take him years to get back to sergeant, especially if he were forced to reclassify. He was told it was not their problem and he was sent back to his section where he was treated like he had just murdered someone. A few days later, he was placed with Soldiers who were being separated from service and assigned miniscule tasks. He states, he only thought about how in the matter of a year he went from a married NCO with a family to a NCO that was treated more poorly than a new recruit. His divorce was ongoing and his ex-wife refused to talk to him or let him talk to his daughters. He states his unit knew that he had just returned from his second deployment and was going through a divorce. He believes that when he needed his command the most, they came down unfairly hard on him. He believed that everything he dedicated himself to was ripped from under his feet. One day, he felt the depression and anxiety of not knowing what was left in life, was too much. He began driving trying to figure out what happened to his life and started to contemplate suicide. After a couple weeks, he returned to his unit and explained himself to the Staff Duty NCO, who immediately called his command. His command instructed him to hang around if he wanted to or to come back on Monday. He believed they cared even less for him than before and he left. He states, in January, he returned and informed his command that he had a court date to finalize his divorce. Again, he received no help and was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, in February. During this time, he was denied the opportunity to work in his MOS was doing crossing guard duties and extra duty tasks all day. He volunteered to be a hazmat driver when his unit was in need, but they laughed in his face and went about their business. He believed his unit failed him at all levels and he could not sleep wondering why him and what would be next. He was reprimanded for being late to formation. He truly understands and accepts responsibility for his actions. Now, he cannot explain his actions and the despair, depression and anxiety clouded his perception. He states, that period of his life does not define him and he is proud of his service and to meet so many people. He desires his life to be complete with the proper documentation of his service as a whole. He completed his first full term of enlistment beyond honorable and is willing to serve again. He requests that the Board consider the effects of the harsh penalties, deployments and experiences leading to this situation. He is currently seeking help with service related PTSD, which he believes was a major contributing factor. It is his desire that he can continue being a contributor to society and for him to return to school and better provide for his family. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a partially mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the reasons leading to an early separation. In summary, SMs did not have an in-service behavioral health diagnosis but was diagnosed with PTSD and Depression from the VA, which can be associated with avoidance behaviors (AWOL/FTRs). This behavioral health condition; however, is not reasonably related to the misconduct of forgery which appeared to be his main source of stress in addition to marital/divorce concerns. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 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, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and post-service PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 11 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 18 April 2011, the applicant was charged with six specifications of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for: Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (2, 11 (x2) and 16 March 2011); AWOL (from 30 March to 11 April 2011; and, from 12 to 14 April 2011). (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 April 2011 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 28 April 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 December 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 42A10, Human Resources / 6 years, 11 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 December 2003 - 3 February 2006 / HD Break in Service RA, 7 June 2006 - 18 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 June 2007 - 19 July 2008; 21 August 2009 - 6 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 / The applicant's service record reflects that he was awarded a third ARCOM, which is not reflected on his DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2008 - 31 May 2009 / Among The Best 1 June 2009 - 31 May 2010 / Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. CG Article 15, dated 29 September 2009, for willfully disobeying a lawful order (2 September 2009). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $520 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Twelve Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 24 November 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 24 December 2010; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 14 February 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 17 February 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 30 March 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 11 April 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 12 April 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 14 April 2011; From "PDY" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)," effective 14 April 2011; From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 29 April 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 3 May 2011; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 18 November 2011 (sic). FG Article 15, dated 25 February 2011, for AWOL (from 24 November 2010 to 18 January 2011; and, from 14 February 2011 to 17 February 2011); failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (2 February 2011); and, with intent to deceive, alter an official record (17 November 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,146 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 38 days (AWOL, 14 February 2011 - 16 February 2011; 30 March 2011 - 13 April 2011; 3 May 2011 - 11 May 2011); (CMA 14 April 2011 - 28 April 2011) / Surrendered Military Control j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is seeking help for service- connected PTSD. 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 that 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge to 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 no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, 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 applicant contends he did not receive help from his command team. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non- judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends the he receives treatment for service connected PTSD. He contends that PTSD affected his behavior, which contributed to his discharge. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant has suggested a desire to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and post-service PTSD diagnosis). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change 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 AR20160019778 2