1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 March 2017 b. Date Received: 23 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believes that during Army service, the applicant was a chaplain's assistant. Inside the chaplain core, the applicant was looked upon highly as an outstanding Soldier until making a mistake two weeks before a deployment and got drunk. The applicant states, when the officer pulled a friend over, they were asked if they had been drinking, which they replied that they had. The applicant was 20 at the time and understands that underage drinking is wrong. The applicant's command team started building a packet on the applicant after learning of the incident. The applicant's command team began back dating counseling statements and the applicant signed them not knowing that that it was illegal. The applicant was under the impression that if doing what they said, it would allow the applicant to stay in the Army. The applicant was forced to leave the chaplain core and become a training room assistant, but really only did details all day. The applicant never complained due to wanting to finish the contract until they told the applicant they were starting paper work. The applicant had no time to actually plan for life outside the Army and now knows firsthand how hard it is. The applicant's hope is that the Board will grant an upgrade so that the applicant may be successful and provide for a family to have in the near future. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 January 2019, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 August 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 November 2015, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; On or about 15 December 2015, he violated Army Regulation 670-1 by wearing an earring; Between on or about 1 January 2016 to on or about 31 January 2016, he violated Army Regulation 670-1, by not having a clean shaven face while on duty; On or about 10 April 2016, he violated Policy Letter 17, paragraph 5b by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21; On or about 4 May 2016, he disobeyed an order from a noncommissioned officer; On 5 May 2016, he failed to sign in with CQ at 0600 hours; On 6 May 2016, he failed to report to 1LT G at 0930 hours; On or about 14 May 2016, he broke restriction; On 5 and 16 May and 12 July 2016, he failed to report to accountability formation at 0630 hours; and, (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 August 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 August 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 May 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 56M10, Chaplain Assistant / 2 years, 2 months, 18 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 30 May 2014 - 14 May 2015 / HD AD, 12 November 2014 - 4 April 2015 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Clarksville Police Department, Incident Report, dated 11 April 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for possession of alcohol while under the age of 21. CG Article 15, dated 6 May 2016, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (22 March 2016); go from his appointed place of duty (22 March and 24 November 2016); fail to obey a lawful regulation, by not having a clean shaven face while on duty (between 1 and 31 January 2016); and, violate a lawful regulation by wearing an earring (15 December 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $409 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 20 May 2016, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 6 May 2016, was vacated because the applicant broke restriction on 14 May 2016. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 July 2016, 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: Unspecified problems related to employment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and DD Form 214. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 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 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 his command team began back dating counseling statements to use in his separation proceedings. However, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 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 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 January 2019, 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 AR20170004185 1