1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 February 2017 b. Date Received: 13 February 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was based on an allegation of a false official statement for submitting a forged medical profile. His separation was improper because the evidence was insufficient to support separation for making a false official statement by submitting a forged DA 3349, physical profile. His separation was unfair because it was never investigated by a neutral investigator and he (applicant) was never afforded an opportunity to present a defense to a separation board or court-martial. He was originally offered non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, but he turned it down and demanded trial by court-martial. He served for nearly five years, deployed to Iraq and had an exemplary service record. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case files, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. AHLTA indicates applicant did not receive any Behavioral Health diagnoses while on active duty. JLV indicates applicant is 30% SC for PTSD related to combat. Based on the available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition. PTSD does not mitigate the offense of making a false official statement. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 June 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is improper based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and denial of due process). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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: 15 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he made a false official statement by presenting a DA Form 3349, Physical Profile that had been altered to reflect a longer period of rehabilitation than originally recommended by CPT J.W., Physician Assistant (18 August 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 May 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 May 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 July 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 10 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 25 December 2009 to 29 July 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 April 2011, relates that the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in any administrative proceedings. He was evaluated for symptoms of PTSD and TBI. He did not exhibit PTSD or TBI or any other mental health disorder that would require a medical evaluation board. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements, dated 5 January 2011, for being suspected of altering / forging a profile. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (four pages); attorney's brief (four pages); TAB A, three DD Forms 214; TAB B, Enlisted Record Brief; TAB C, DA Form 3349, Physical Profile; TAB D, sworn statement (two pages); TAB E, rebuttal memorandum; and TAB F, counseling statement; and TAB G, Chapter 14, separation documents (six pages). 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, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 misconduct (serious offense), 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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was based on an allegation of a false official statement for submitting a forged medical profile; and his separation was improper because the evidence was insufficient to support separation, for making a false official statement by submitting a forged DA 3349, physical profile. The record shows that the 42nd Military Police Brigade Surgeon showed CPT J.W., Physician Assistant (PA), a DA form 3349 supposedly signed by her on 18 August 2010, for the applicant. In that sworn statement, she stated she never saw the applicant as a patient on 18 August 2010 and did not write a profile for him on that date. The PA further stated the document was a forgery and the profile was invalid. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, his separation was unfair because it was never investigated by a neutral investigator and he (applicant) was never afforded an opportunity to present a defense to a separation board or court-martial. It appears that the command determined sufficient credible evidence existed and there was no need for a neutral investigator to determine the origination of the forged profile, which was the reason for the applicant's discharge. If the applicant believed he was not being treated fairly regarding the forged profile, the applicant could have requested a commander's inquiry to clear him of any wrongdoing. The applicant also contends, he was originally offered non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, but he turned it down and demanded trial by court-martial. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was offered an Article 15, but he turned it down and demanded trial by court- martial. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant additionally contends, he served for nearly five years, deployed to Iraq and had an exemplary service record. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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 June 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is improper based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and denial of due process). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20170002214 1