1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 January 2017 b. Date Received: 17 April 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, he was diagnosed with PTSD at Henderson Behavioral Health. He was separated for misconduct that was symptomatic of PTSD. He returned from deployment and began experiencing anxiety, depression and began self-medicating with alcohol. Under regulations at the time of separation, he was entitled to a medical examination to assess the relationship between his PTSD and the misconduct that led to his separation. His symptoms of PTSD should have been properly evaluated and considered in determining his characterization of service. Since receiving treatment for his PTSD, he has not engaged in violent misconduct, is excelling at his occupation, and working toward getting his own apartment. He was young in age and experienced multiple combat tours in two of Afghanistan's most violent providences. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, PTSD does not mitigate the misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 August 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he assaulted X, by punching her multiple times with a closed fist causing bruising and substantial pain to her wrist (10 March 2012); he assaulted X, by striking her with a metal belt buckle wrapped around his fist causing bruising to her back and a cut on her forehead (10 March 2012); he unlawfully held X. against her will in his house and would not let her leave the residence (10 March 2012); he assaulted X, by holding two kitchen knives in his hands and saying "I will kill your father if he shows up," or words to that effect (10 March 2012); he caused X to engage in a sexual act by using physical violence and restraint applied by holding her down by her hair, so that she couldn't escape (10 March 2012); he caused X to engage in a sexual act by placing her in fear of physical injury (10 March 2012); he failed to obey a lawful order issued to him by CPT X (23 March 2012); he drove a motor vehicle without insurance and with a suspended license (25 March 2012); he operated a vehicle while drunk (2 May 2010); and he assaulted X, by striking him on the arm with a rock causing an abrasion and bleeding (15 November 2008). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant unconditionally waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 August 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 September 2007 / 6 years, 26 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / GED Certificate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 10 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan x2, 1 January 2009 to 9 January 2010 and 1 April 2011 to 5 March 2012 f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM-2, NDSM, ACM-3CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR- 2, NATO MDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 15 November 2008, relates the applicant was under investigation for assault, second degree, off post. Military Police Report, dated 2 May 2010, revealed the applicant was under investigation for driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, third degree, refusal to take a Breathalyzer, failed to yield right of way when entering roadway, no / inadequate lights, off post. Military Police Report, dated 17 March 2012, indicates the applicant was under investigation for second degree assault, third degree assault, unlawful imprisonment second degree, menacing second degree, and rape first degree, off post. Military Police Report, dated 25 March 2012, shows the applicant was under investigation for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, second degree, off post; operating a motor vehicle with switched plates, operating a motor vehicle with no insurance, unsafe start, and willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, on post. FG Article 15, dated 5 April 2012, for having knowledge of a lawful order issued by CPT J.M., to call staff duly as implemented due to restriction to post, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to call (23 March 2012); and driving a motor vehicle without insurance such neglect, being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (25 March 2012); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay for two months (suspended) and extra duty for 45 days. CID Report of Investigation, dated 4 May 2012, relates the applicant was under investigation for unlawful imprisonment (second degree), assault (second and third degree), menacing (second degree) and rape (first degree). 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 18 April 2012, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of partner-relational problem. He screened positive for PTSD and mTBI. He was referred for comprehensive PTSD and mTBI evaluations. He was negative for all other psychiatric disorders, to include mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, and personality disorders. A comprehensive evaluation for PTSD and TBI was subsequently performed, and he did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD. He was responsible for his behavior, could distinguish from right and wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative or judicial proceedings. VA Document, dated 2 December 2015, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, moderate, PTSD, alcohol and substance use disorder, moderate, in early remission. Letter, Henderson Behavioral Health, dated 8 December 2016, shows the applicant was a client at the New Vistas Branch since February 2016 and was diagnosed with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); letter, Legal Aid Service; Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (six pages); Exhibit A, PTSD Diagnosis Letter; Exhibit B, DD Form 214; Exhibit C, Reports of Medical History (18 pages); Exhibit D, Enlisted Record Brief and Orders (five pages); Exhibit E, 2008 Incident Reports (12 pages); Exhibit F, 2010 Incident Reports (20 pages); Exhibit G, 2012 Incident Reports (Domestic Violence and Unsafe Start, 57 pages); and Exhibit H, Letters of Support and Other Supporting Documents (38 pages). The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has been employed as a mechanic for several months. 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 under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or 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 a general (under honorable conditions) or 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 diagnosed with PTSD at Henderson Behavioral Health. The applicant submitted a letter that revealed he was diagnosed with PTSD by the previous mentioned mental health facility. The applicant further contends, he was separated for misconduct that was symptomatic of PTSD. 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 PTSD was the cause of his misconduct. The applicant also contends, he returned from deployment he began experiencing anxiety, depression and began self-medicating with alcohol. He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant additionally contends, under regulations at the time of separation, he was entitled to a medical examination to assess the relationship between his PTSD and the misconduct that led to his separation; and his symptoms of PTSD should have been properly evaluated and considered in determining his characterization of service. The record of evidence shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 18 April 2012. The evaluation revealed the applicant screened positive for PTSD and mTBI. He was referred for comprehensive PTSD and mTBI evaluations. A comprehensive evaluation for PTSD and TBI was subsequently performed, and at the time he did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Furthermore, the applicant contends, since receiving treatment for his PTSD, he has not engaged in violent misconduct, excelling at his occupation, and working toward getting his own apartment. The applicant ids to be commended for his efforts. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was young in age and experienced multiple combat tours in two of Afghanistan's most violent providences. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in the documents with the application. 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 24 August 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 AR20170008589 1