1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 December 2016 b. Date Received: 20 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, he was on tower guard and it was hit by a mortar round on the lower part of the tower, but it shook the entire tower. He was never hospitalized; but was seen by a medical doctor in the 308th in charge of the FOB documented the event. He-had a hemorrhage of the right eye but was returned to duty. He had recurring headaches, difficulty concentrating, started being late to formation, his M249-rifle came up missing and he did not have his ID card. All of this started counseling statements, which lead to an Article 15. He thought the Article 15 was for a pattern of misconduct. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the applicant does have behavioral health conditions, but did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of the SM's electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Insomnia, a Personality Disorder, and Malingering. Mental Status Evaluation dated 22 August 2007 indicated a diagnosis of severe conduct disorder, adolescent-onset type and Axis, antisocial personality disorder (Cluster B Personality Disorder), a chronic and difficult to treat condition. He did not present any significant signs or symptoms indicating a serious or incapacitating mental illness. He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. SM has a 70% service-connected rating for PTSD from the VA. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 October 2007 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 August 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he received a FG Article 15, dated 12 July 2007, for failing to report, sleeping on duty, dereliction of duty, multiple negative counseling's for failing to report, dereliction of duty and attempted desertion. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 August 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 June 2006 / 4 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 1 year, 3 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 1 January 2007 to 15 September 2007 f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 July 2007, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (16 April 2007); who knew of his duties at FOB Loyalty, Iraq, were derelict in the performance of those duties x3, he willfully failed to maintain accountability of his Military ID card, (11 May 2007); he willfully failed to shave (17June 2007); and willfully failed to maintain accountability of his assigned weapon, (19 June 2007); as it was his duties to do; and while receiving special pay under U.S.C. § 310, being posted as a lookout at Tower 7, were found sleeping upon his post (10 June 2007); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $700 pay for two months (suspended) and extra duty for 30 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 August 2007, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of severe conduct disorder, adolescent-onset type and Axis, antisocial personality disorder (Cluster B Personality Disorder), a chronic and difficult to treat condition. He did not present any significant signs or symptoms indicating a serious or incapacitating mental illness. He was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by Command. Letter, Commission of Veteran Affairs, Linn County Iowa, dated 14 March 2017, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD on 20 October 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); VA letter, Supplemental Statement of the Case (two pages); letter, Commission of Veteran Affairs, Linn County Iowa, indicates a diagnosis of PTSD; DD Form 214; transcript, Kirkwood Community College; Eagle Scout certificate of completion; and a letter, Boy Scouts of America. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant submitted a transcript that shows he earned an Associate's Degree. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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 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 documented pattern of misconduct, 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, he was on tower guard and it was hit by a mortar round on the lower part of the tower, but it shook the entire tower; he was never hospitalized; but was seen by a medical doctor in the 308th in charge of the FOB documented the event; he had a hemorrhage of the right eye but was returned to duty; he had recurring headaches, had difficulty concentrating, started-being late to formation, his M249-rifle came up missing, he did not have his ID card; all of this started counseling statements, which Ied to an Article 15; and he thought the Article 15 was for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support these contentions. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his guard tower being hit by a mortar round was the cause his pattern of misconduct. 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 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 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 AR20170005188 1