1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 April 2017 b. Date Received: 24 April 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 suffers from severe mental health conditions (PTSD with Bipolar), which was not diagnosed while on active duty in the military. His mental health conditions were detrimental to his military career and hindered his ability to make rational decisions regarding his military career and personal life. If he had been properly diagnosed while on active duty, he strongly believes that he would not have been discharged with a general discharge. He should have been medically boarded for his mental health and severe asthma. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records indicated no record of behavioral health diagnoses during his period of service. A Mental Status Evaluation dated 25 September 2007 for Chapter 14-12b proceedings, indicated SM met medical retention standards and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative actions. Prior to the mental status eval, no behavioral health records were available. Post service, SM sought behavioral health services at BAMC in 2014 and was diagnosed with Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. SM has a 100% service connected rating for PTSD and Bipolar Disorder from the VA. In summary, SM has diagnoses of PTSD and Depression, which can be associated with irritability, anger, and avoidance behaviors such as AWOL; however, during the personal appearance, SM indicated his unauthorized absence was not intentional and was due to an administrative error. His behavioral health conditions are not reasonably related to the majority of his other misconduct to include committing fraud, larceny, adultery, nonsupport of dependents, etc. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 April 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: 31 May 2008 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 January 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; failure to maintain contact with the unit, absenting himself from the unit without authority, larceny and wrongful appropriation, fraud against the Government, dishonorably failing to pay a debt, adultery, insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey a direct order and nonsupport of dependents. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 February 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 19 February 2008, the separation approving authority referred the applicant's case to an administrative separation board. On 7 March 2008, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 15 April 2008, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of general, under honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 9 May 2008, the separation authority reviewed the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 December 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 years / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 11 years, 9 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 August 1996 to 21 January 2000 / HD RA, 22 January 2000 to 16 December 2003 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / Italy / Kosovo, 9 September 1999 to 3 March 200 / SWA / Iraq, 26 March 2003 to 15 March 2004 / Pakistan, 15 October 2005 to 20 February 2006 / f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-"V" DEV, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, KCM, ICM-ARRW HD, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM-2, ASR, OSR-4, CMB, JMUA, MUC g. Performance Ratings: July 2004 to March 2005, Among The Best April 2005 to March 2006, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 28 September 2006, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Ms. X., a woman not his wife between (1 April 2005 and 31 May 2005); reduction to SPC / E-4, forfeiture of $1,009 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 30 days (both suspended 15 days). FG Article 15, dated 1 November 2007, for failing to obey an order or regulation; reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $650 (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended). This Article 15 is not contained in the available record; see unit commander's recommendation memorandum. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA document shows that the applicant was assigned an evaluation for 70 percent for PTSD, with bipolar disorder, effective 8 July 2011, which was subsequently increased to 100 percent, effective 21 May 2015. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 149 (two pages); VA document (three); applicant letter to ADRB; asthma documents (52 pages); letter, Director Case Management Division; and three support statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant submitted a document that shows his employment with the San Antonio Military Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston as a Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer. 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 14-12b 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 suffers from severe mental health conditions (PTSD with Bipolar), which was not diagnosed while active in the military. The applicant submitted a VA document that shows he was assigned an evaluation of 100 percent for PTSD, with bipolar disorder, effective 21 May 2015. The applicant further contends, his mental health conditions were detrimental to his military career and hindered his ability to make rational decisions regarding his military career and personal life. 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 sufficient evidence to support the contention that his mental health conditions hindered his ability to serve successfully. The applicant also contends, if he had been properly diagnosed while on active duty, he strongly believes that he would not have been discharged with a general discharge. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant additionally contends, he should have been medically boarded for his mental health and severe asthma. The applicant submitted several medical documents that revealed he was diagnosed with asthma, moderate persistent and prescribed medication for treatment. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 April 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170010530 3