1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 June 2017 b. Date Received: 3 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the applicant had exemplary conduct throughout years of service in the Army. The applicant wished to stay in the Army and continue service, but was advised to seek further medical attention after reoccurring injuries. The applicant had plans to attend college under the Post 911 for Sports Medicine, but at this time is unable to obtain that goal and the current discharge status makes it hard to find a job in certain areas. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 February 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 November 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for engaging in behavior that led to a coordinated assault and hazing of another team member on 15 April 2016. Hazing Soldiers by recklessly and intentionally causing them to suffer or be exposed to activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or harmful which is in violation of paragraph 4-19, Army Regulation 600-20. These actions were inconsistent with Army values and the required expectations, integrity, and moral standards expected of Soldiers (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 November 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 December 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) It should be noted, the separation authority after reviewing the applicant's medical evaluation board proceedings determined the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation and there was no other circumstances of the individual case that warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 2014 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 5 December 2013 to 24 February 2014 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: 15-6 Investigation into allegations of unfair and abusive treatment of another Soldier. FG Article 15, dated 20 October 2016, for unlawfully striking PFC C. B., in the body with a fist on 15 April 2016. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $783 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and oral reprimand. Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings which shows the board found the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 10 percent and that the applicant's disposition be separated with severance pay. Report Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 September 2016, shows the applicant the applicant was screened for PTSD, mTBI, and military sexual assault IAW MEDCOM policy. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant did not have BH conditions that was medically unacceptable and was not receiving BH services; there was no relationship between a BH condition and the alleged misconduct. However, the applicant was in the MEB process for physical health issues and was found to have a physical health condition that fails medical retention standards. Therefore, the applicant was not cleared for final administrative action at that time, but administrative action could proceed IAW AR 635-40 pending results of the determination by the GCMCA. Several negative counseling statements for various actions of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings and Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Administration; PEBLO Estimated Disability Compensation Worksheet; and DD Form 214. 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 general (under 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, in effect, that he had exemplary conduct in his years of service in the Army. He wished to stay in the Army and continue his service, but was advised to seek further medical attention after reoccurring injuries. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, evidence in the record shows the applicant was discharge as a result of engaging in behavior that led to a coordinated assault and hazing of another team member on 15 April 2016. 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. Although the applicant was pending medical evaluation board proceedings the separation authority after reviewing the applicant's medical evaluation board proceedings determined the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation and there was no other circumstances of the individual case that warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. The applicant contends that he had plans to attend college under the Post 911 for Sports Medicine, but at this time he's unable to obtain that goal and his current discharge status makes it hard for him to find a job in certain areas. These contentions were also noted; however, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 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 22 February 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 AR20170010646 1