1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 April 2017 b. Date Received: 6 July 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, was punished for the offenses, but during retirement, they brought it up again, which interfered with receipt of an honorable discharge. The applicant is fine with opening the case, if needed. 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 the applicant has a 70% service- connected rating from the VA. In summary, due to the basis of separation is not in file, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 March 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's service record is void of the complete separation proceedings. Legal Review, dated 24 June 2013, reflects an administrative separation board, recommended the applicant be separated from service with an Under Other Than Honorable conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant's service record is void of the complete separation proceedings. However, the Legal Review, dated 24 June 2013, reflects an administrative separation board, recommended the applicant be separated under AR 635-200, 14-12c, and that his service be characterized as other than honorable, and that the discharge be suspended for a period of three months. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 April 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 April 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 11B40, Infantryman / 26 years, 6 months, 8 days / Based on the applicant's service record, it appears the applicant was in the USAR until 28 April 1989. The applicant first enlisted in the Active Duty Army on 29 November 1989, therefore, the applicant's DD Form block 12a, date entered AD this period, should reflect 29 April 1989. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 16 December 1987 - 20 January 1988 / NA IADT, 21 January 1988 - 28 April 1988 / UNC USAR, 29 April 1988 -28 November 1989 / NIF RA, 29 November 1989 - 21 April 1993 / HD RA, 22 April 1993 - 1 January 1997 / HD RA, 2 January 1997 - 5 January 2000 / HD RA, 6 January 2000 - 11 June 2003 / HD RA, 12 June 2003 - 27 April 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Korea, SWA / Iraq (14 October 2004 - 2004 - 1 October 2005 / 9 November 2008 - 30 October 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-V, ARCOM, AAM-6, AGCM-6, NDSM-BSS, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, ASR, OSR-4, CIB-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2008 - 15 January 2011 / Among The Best 16 January 2011 - 15 January 2012 / Among The Best 16 January 2012 - 15 January 2013 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 26 May 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Fail to obey General Order-Other (On Post). Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 26 May 2011, reflects the investigating officer found, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that MSG H and the applicant consumed alcohol in violation of USF-1 GO-01A. The investigating officer made the following recommendations: MSG H and the applicant should be directly counseled by their supervisors to clearly highlight the impact of their offenses and possible future outcomes of their careers in the United States Army after this particular incident. MSG H and the applicant should be given a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) IAW AR 190-5. MSG H and the applicant should be subjected to UCMJ and receive an Article 15 for violating the USF-I GO-01A. OPS Company should continue to conduct regular training on the lJSF-I GO-01lA to reinforce Soldiers and Civilians of prohibited activities while in the IJOA and highlight current division and battalion policies and orders in effect. GO Article 15, dated 7 July 2011, for failing to obey a lawful order, Command Policy Memorandum #16 - Buddy Team Policy, by leaving the battalion footprint without notifying his supervisor of his whereabouts (25 May 2011); for violating a lawful general order, by wrongfully consuming alcohol (25 may 2011); and, for being found drunk on duty as a noncommissioned officer while serving in an area of active hostilities in Iraq (26 May 2011). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2171 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and for 45 days; and a written reprimand. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 8 July 2011, for his conduct on 25 May 2011, near Camp Liberty, Iraq. According to an AR 15-6 investigation, he and another senior noncommissioned officer left the Battalion area without informing anyone of his whereabouts. Both became so intoxicated he failed to meet the one hour accountability requirements for Operations Company following an indirect fire attack on Victory Base Complex and he was unaccounted for until 0230 hours on 26 May 2011. Upon his return, the Military Police conducted a field sobriety test, which he failed. He later admitted to consuming four cups of alcohol in violation of United States Forces-Iraq General Order lA dated 21 September 2010, and a subsequent breathalyzer revealed a BAC of .140%. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Congressional Letter; DD Form 2627 and allied documents. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about being punishment for his misconduct, but it was then used against him during his retirement process, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity. Further, 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 applicant claims in a letter to his Senator that he attends PTSD therapy. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 March 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 AR20170010302 1