1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2016 b. Date Received: 18 November 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request for an upgrade is based on a PTSD diagnosis, which resulted from service in Iraq. The applicant states that Major V J at the National Guard Bureau can testify to the service existence in Iraq. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record and the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), files indicate several diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant did provide documentation that included a letter from a Major which states the applicant was seen by the unit's Combat Stress Company while in theater for problems related to combat stress. During the applicant's Chapter 14-12 separation Mental Status Evaluation, the provider documented no Behavioral Health (BH) conditions. Review of the VA records indicate no clinical content regarding the applicant and there is no documentation that indicates the applicant met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Based on the available medical documentation, a statement regarding mitigation cannot be made due to insufficient evidence. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 August 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 September 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Failure to report x14; AWOL from 11 August to 9 September 2008; Disobeying a direct order of a commissioned officer; Failure to obey a written order or regulation; Wrongful use of cocaine; Wrongful use of marijuana; He also had been counseled a number of times for additional acts of misconduct; and, His actions were not becoming of a Soldier in the United States Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 September 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 September 2008, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2008 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 June 2006 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 21E10, Heavy Construction Equipment Operator / 3 years, 3 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 29 June 2005 - 1 June 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 14 May 2008, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (6 and 13 March, 22 April and 8 May 2008); and, for going from his appointed place of duty without authority (7 March 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $352 pay (suspended); and, extra duty for 14 days (suspended). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 12 June 2008, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 14 May 2008, was vacated because the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (4 June 2008). FG Article 15, dated 23 July 2008, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (6 and 13 March, 22 April and 8 May 2008); and, for going from his appointed place of duty without authority (7 March 2008); operating a motor cycle on a highway at a time when his driving privileges were suspended and without proof of insurance (14 July 2008); disobeyed a lawful command (14 July 2008); and, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (1 May, 2 and 8 July 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $673 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 28 July 2008, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 50960 (cocaine), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 11 July 2008. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 August 2008, 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. Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 15 September 2008. The applicant was charged with five specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 86, Failure to report: Six specifications, Failure to report to appointed place of duty, guilty consistent with the plea; Failure to report to appointed place of duty, not guilty consistent with the plea; AWOL, guilty consistent with the plea; Violation of Article 92, Failure to obey written order or regulation. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Two specifications, violation of Article 112a: Wrongful use of cocaine; guilty consistent with the plea; and, Wrongful use of marijuana; guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Confinement for 27 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 32 days AWOL, 9 July 2008 - 10 July 2008 / NIF AWOL, 11 August 2008 - 8 September 2008 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a letter of support dated 10 November 2016, wherein the author states he visited the applicant in a Combat Stress unit, while deployed to Iraq. The author states the applicant was being evaluated for combat stress / post-traumatic stress issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and two letters of support. 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. 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 general (under honorable conditions). 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 that he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which affected his behavior. 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 record shows that on 4 August 2008, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. 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 1 August 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 a 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 / 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 AR20170001731 4