1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 June 2017 b. Date Received: 22 June 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 inequitable because the punishment was too severe for the crime. The applicant's past history and medal of good conduct, as well as, personal and professional accomplishments were not taken into consideration. The discharge was handled improperly and the applicant was not out processed correctly, causing future problems to veteran benefits. The applicant has a new and stable marriage, maintains a full time job, is the sole provider for the family, and also has sought treatment for personal issues and feels able to move past the causes of these past actions. The applicant requests reinstatement to active duty. 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. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymia, Chronic PTSD from childhood, and Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 August 2019, 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: 22 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 March 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he was AWOL between (22 December 2010 and 8 January 2011); and he failed to obey lawful orders given to him by his command. Of note, the initiation memorandum annotates the AWOL period as 22 December 2010 to 8 January 2010; however, it should read 8 January 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 March 2011, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 March 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 April 2009 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15T10, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer / 4 years, 8 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 June 2006 to 22 April 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Iraq, 24 October 2008 to 16 October 2009 / Afghanistan, 26 October 2010 to 22 December 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 29 December 2008, for without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (5 December 2008); and with intent to deceive, make to SFC W.J.S., SGT P.D.B., and 1LT S.J.G., an official statement, that he was late because his roommate was urinating in both bottles and leaving them out which caused him to get sick and vomit on the floor and then had to clean it up, which statement totally false and then known by him to be so false (5 December 2008); extra duty and restriction for 14 days and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 22 February 2011, for without authority, absented himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (22 December 2010 until 8 January 2011); having received a lawful command from CPT M., his superior commissioned officer, to pay his wife her entitlement in bi-monthly increments of $350 or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same on divers occasions between (1 September 2010 to 11 November 2010); and having received a lawful order from 1SG B.S.B., a noncommissioned officer, to pay his wife her entitlement pursuant to Army Regulation 608-99, an order which it was his duty to obey, did willfully disobey the same between 11 November 2010 and 24 January 2011); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $822 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days and an oral reprimand. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and counseling regarding his mental health. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 17 days, 22 December 2010 to 8 January 2011; mode of return unknown. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 February 2011, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. He was screened for PTSD and TBI. These conditions were either not present or, if present, do not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. Command is advised to consider the influence of these conditions, if present, when determining final disposition. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages); two self-authored statement (three pages); CG Article 15 (two pages); ARCOM certificate; DD Form 214; two support statements; marriage license; and Chapter 14 separation packet (40 pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states in his application since his discharge he has attended college courses and working towards a bachelor's degree in English and psychology. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 Army 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, his discharge was inequitable because the punishment was too severe for the crime. 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 characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant further contends, his past history and medal of good conduct as well as personal and professional accomplishments were not taken into consideration. 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 also contends, his discharge was handled improperly and he was not out processed correctly, causing future problems to his veteran benefits. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of 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 that he was unjustly discharged. 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 additionally contends, he has a new and stable marriage, he maintains a full time job, the sole provider for his family; he also has sought treatment for his personal issues and feels he is able to move past the causes of his past actions. The applicant is 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. The applicant requests reinstatement to active duty. The Army Discharge Review Board is not empowered to reinstate former service members to active duty. The Board may only change the characterization of service or reason for discharge. If an applicant believes there was an error or injustice in his discharge, he may make an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, using DD Form 149, which can be obtained online or from a Veterans Service Organization. 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 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 14 August 2019, 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 AR20170009660 1