1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 May 2017 b. Date Received: 6 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the applicant was discharged due to allegations of violating general order number 1, while deployed to Afghanistan. Allegedly, the applicant was accused of entering the living quarters of Soldiers of the opposite sex that and that the applicant had an inappropriate relationship. Additionally one of the Soldier's the applicant was accused of entering her room was an officer in charge (OIC). The applicant contends that all preponderance of credible evidence to allegations to the 15-6 investigations of an inappropriate relationship were not substantiated. The approving authority of the 15-6 investigations recommended a non-commissioned officer professional development session be conducted to the Company. The applicant contends that all parties involved in the 15-6 investigation were allowed to continue their careers and all received promotions. The applicant was recommended to be discharged from the Army, loss of promotion to master sergeant, and the board recommended a discharge from the Army. All allegations were unfounded by the 15-6 investigation. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety, and Depression with Anxiety. The applicant is 90% service-connected; 50% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2020, and by a 3-2 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: 1 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully violating a lawful general order on or about 26 September 2012 and on or about 7 December 2012, by violating a lawful regulation between on or about 26 September 2012 and on or about 15 January 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 July 2013, the applicant having been advised by his counseling counsel request consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 25 October 2013, the Administrative Separation Board convened. The applicant attended with legal counseling. In view of the findings, the board by unanimous decision recommended that the applicant be discharge from the Army and that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 March 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 37 / 2 Years College / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 92A14, Automated Logistical Specialist / 14 years, 1 month, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 March 2000 to 29 October 2003 / HD RA, 30 October 2003 to 4 October 2005 / HD RA, 5 October 2005 to 9 October 2007, HD RA, 10 October 2007 to 1 October 2012, HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Kuwait (14 April 2010 to 13 March 2011) and Afghanistan (13 September 2012 to 6 March 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, AGCM-4, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWTEM, GWTSM, KDSM, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 11 April 2009 to 10 April 2010, Among The Best 11 April 2010 to 10 April 2011, Among The Best 11 April 2011 to 10 April 2012, Among The Best 11 April 2012 to 21 February 2013, Marginal 22 February 2013 to 21 February 2014, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 February 2013, for failing to obey a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 5c(2), Combined Joint Task Force-1, General Order Number 1, dated 19 April 2012, by wrongfully entering the living space of SSG J.B., an individual of the opposite sex, between 26 September 2012 and 6 December 2012, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; failing to obey a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 5c(2), Combined Joint Task Force-1, General Order Number 1, dated 7 December 2012, by wrongfully entering the living space of SSG J.B., an individual of the opposite sex between 7 December 2012 and 15 January 2013, and failing to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 4-14b, dated 20 September 2012, by wrongfully engaging in an inappropriate relationship with PFC S.C., in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,937.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 18 February 2014, for being found drunk while on duty on 21 January 2014. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for two months (suspended) extra duty for 45 days (suspended), and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Counseling statement recommending administrative separation under the provisions of 14-12c, Commission of Serious Offense. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 June 2013, which shows the applicant was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and m-Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI). The applicant scored 1 / 4 positive for PTSD and 1 / 10 positive for mTBI. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared for administrative purposes only, by Department of Behavioral Health for Chapter 14-12c. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; AR 15-6 Investigation; sworn statements; enlisted record brief; enlisted record brief and officer record brief of others; description of Article 134 and Article 93 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); Combined Joint Task Force-1 General Order 1, dated 7 December 2012; Report of Investigation (1SB-STB-11-02), dated 10 November 2011; sworn statements from others; extract from AR 600-20, dated 18 March 2008; extract from AR 600-100, dated 8 March 2007; no contact order for SSG Burks, CW2 McDaniel, and SPC Cannon; suspension from duties for SFC Price and SSG Burks; Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificates; 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 his under other than 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 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 seeks relief contending that he was discharged due to allegations of violating general order number 1, while deployed to Afghanistan. Allegedly, he was accused of entering the living quarters of Soldiers of the opposite sex that and that he had an inappropriate relationship. Additionally one of the Soldier's he was accused of entering her room was his officer in charge (OIC). The applicant contends that all preponderance of credible evidence to allegations to the 15-6 investigations of an inappropriate relationship were not substantiated. The approving authority of the 15-6 investigations recommended a non-commissioned officer professional development session be conducted to the Company. The applicant contends that all parties involved in the 15-6 investigation were allowed to continue their careers and all received promotions. He was recommended to be discharged from the Army, loss of his promotion to master sergeant, and the board recommended his discharge from the Army. All allegation were unfounded by the 15-6 investigation. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 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 27 March 2020, and by a 3-2 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: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY (SRA): The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) exercised his Secretarial Reviewing Authority (SRA) to review the findings, conclusions, and the Board's determination under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards) enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The SRA concurred with the Board's minority determination and directed that the characterization of service be changed to general. 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 AR20170009345 1