1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 February 2017 b. Date Received: 2 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his current discharge was not correct. He had served in the military for many years and he had never received any type of discharge other honorable conditions, until his most recent discharge. He believes he was discharged prior to reenlisting due to the fact that his commander believed that the applicant's medical condition made him unfit for duty. He states that if his commander believed that he was unfit for duty, he should have submitted the applicant for a medical discharge from service using a medical board to make the proper determination. Additionally his commander tried to have the applicant sign a bar-to-reenlistment, which prompted the applicant to seek help from his local JAG office. He states, he needed to do this to prevent his commander from harassing him about signing a bar-to-reenlistment. He states that he had always maintained an excellent record and had many accomplishments in his military career. He received a number of awards, decorations, certifications and letters for his performance and proudly served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq. His unit considered his behavior as bad conduct, but it was his medical condition he developed from his service in Iraq. His unit sent him for a Mental Status Evaluation on 30 November 2005, but chose to let time past by and not let him reenlist, rather than seek help for him. Additionally, he had served in the Army National Guard and the US Army Reserves, wherein he only received honorable discharges for those periods of enlistments. After his discharge, he sought medical attention through the VA Hospital. He has continued to receive medical attention since October 2007. He has been diagnosed with some conditions that include PTSD, TBI and others. He states, he does not let those conditions affect him or get in his way because of the tools he has learned over the years. He desires the upgrade to his discharge in order to receive his education and become a better person and role model for his children. He desires to continue his education and further his life. 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 mitigating medical or behavioral health condition. A review of VA medical records indicated SM had diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, and Cocaine and Alcohol Abuse. Although a clear basis of separation was not indicated through medical records, it was indicated that prior to his separation, there was concern by Command that SM was using substances due to issues with anger/irritability. At the personal appearance, SM reported being command referred for a mental health evaluation at Fort Drum in which he subsequently returned home and was separated. He denied receiving a profile and did not have a copy of the report; however, this evaluation was referenced in his VA records and it was indicated that Command was concerned SM may "go postal" and be a harm to himself or others. ; In summary, although SM has a history of behavioral health conditions, they are not mitigating for the pattern of misconduct leading to an early separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 February 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 August 2003 / 3 years (AGR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 38 / NIF / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 63B20, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 22 years, 11 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 16 September 1983 - 8 January 1984 / NA 8 IADT, 9 January 1984 - 14 July 1984 / HD ARNG, 15 July 1984 - 8 October 1987 / NA AD, 9 October 1987 - 19 January 1988 / HD ARNG, 20 January 1988 - 16 February 1989 / NA AD, 17 February 1989 - 19 July 1989 / NIF ARNG, 20 July 1989 - 1 May 1998 / GD USARC, 2 May 1998 - 1 May 1990 / NIF ARNG, 2 May 1990 - 1 May 1991 / HD AGR, 1 November 2002 - 24 August 2003 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF / However, the applicant states in his issues that he did a combat tour. f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, ARCAM-5, NDSM-2, GOWTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, AFRM-2, AROTR, AFRMM g. Performance Ratings: November 2003 - October 2004 / Fully Capable November 2004 - October 2005 / Fair / Poor (SR) h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 5 August 2005, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 16 May 2005; and, for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a warrant officer on 16 May 2005. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $571 (suspended). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 3 November 2005, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 9 September 2005. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided copies of his VA medical treatment records, which reflect he was diagnosed with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is currently undergoing treatment for his conditions and is pursuing a higher education. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant provided a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions that his commander believed the applicant's medical condition caused the applicant to be unfit for duty was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends his commander attempted to get the applicant to sign a bar to reenlistment, which prompted the applicant to seek legal counsel. 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 the VA has diagnosed him with post-service PTSD. However, a careful review of the available record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, 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 contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 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 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 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. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Documents pertaining to the applicant's career - 27 pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None were listed on the hearing data sheet. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 February 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170004987 5