1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 March 2017 b. Date Received: 24 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was a result of behavior resulting in misconduct that was a direct result of major depression and PTSD; that went untreated while on active duty. The applicant is service connected for this condition and the discharge should be upgraded. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. The SM was diagnosed with a Dysthymic Disorder but was determined to not have a ""severe mental disorder"" and was not considered mentally disordered (did not require a medical board). It was also indicated that the SM manifested chronic depression and anxiety in the face of occupational stress, extremely limiting the ability to function in the military and that longstanding disorder behavior and adaptability was of such severity to preclude adequate military service. The SM's Medical Examination as a part of the separation physical (MEB/Chapter 14-12C), indicated a diagnosis of a Depressive Disorder; however, was determined to be qualified for service. Post-service, the SM has a 70 percent disability rating for Major Depression and PTSD (claimed as nerves) and a 30 percent rating for migraine headaches. In summary, although the SM has a mental health history, the depression appears to have existed prior to military service. The SM's depressive disorder was also considered by an MEB, however, did not warrant a medical disposition. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 September 2005 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 July 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he made an official statement with the intent to deceive SSG X., in that his weapon discharged while he was cleaning it, he intentionally injured yourself by shooting himself in the right foot to avoid his duties while deployed at Camp New Jersey, Kuwait, during a time of war; and he received a CG Article 15 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty x2 (19 February 2004 and 8 March 2004). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 July 2005, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, although he was not entitled to a board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 August 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 September 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / HS Graduate / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91W10, Health Care Specialist / 6 years, 6 months / d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 7 January 1999 to 8 February 1999 / NA IADT, 9 February 1999 to 2 July 1999 / UNC USAR, 3 July 1999 to 14 May 2002 / NA USARCG, 15 May 2002 to 23 September 2002 / NA The record contains a DD Form 214 which shows that the applicant served in Marines for the following period, USMC, 17 February 2000 to 29 June 2000 / UNC; it appears that the applicant was not given credit for this period. e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 5 April 2003 to 4 April 2004 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation, dated 21 March 2004, relates that the applicant was under investigation for malingering. CG Article 15, dated 24 March 2004, for two different occasions, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x2 (19 February 2004 and 8 March 2004); reduction to PV2 / E-2 (suspended) and extra duty 10 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; failing the APFT and monthly counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 March 2005, revealed that the applicant has twice required inpatient psychiatric hospitalization for thoughts of suicide (2000 and 2003), and shot himself in the foot in Iraq. His diagnosis was Dysthymic Disorder. He does not have a "severe mental disorder" and is not considered mentally disordered (he does not require a medical board); however, he manifests chronic depression and anxiety in the face of occupational stress, extremely limiting his ability to function in the military. This longstanding disorder behavior and adaptability is of such severity to preclude adequate military service. Physical profile, dated 14 September 2004, indicates the applicant was issued a permanent profile for Depressive Disorder, not otherwise specified. VA rating decision, dated 25 August 2005, relates that the applicant was service connected for major depression (claimed as nerves) was granted an evaluation of 70 percent, and migraine headaches an evaluation of 30 percent, both effective 7 September 2005. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); VA rating decision (five pages); and a 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 14-12c 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. 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 seeks relief contending, his discharge was a result of behavior resulting in misconduct that was a direct result of major depression and PTSD; that went untreated while on active duty and he is service connected for this condition and his discharge should be upgraded. The record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with a depressive disorder, not otherwise specified and major depression (claimed as nerves). Further, the VA rating decision shows that service connection for PTSD claimed as nerves was denied. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 20 July 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 AR20170005016 1