1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 August 2017 b. Date Received: 21 August 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, had two honorable discharges from the military, which reflect the service was highly productive. The applicant believes the discharge is unjust compared to the complete record of service. Prior to joining the Army, the applicant always looked up to those who served the country in its time of need. The applicant was proud of joining the Army and used every opportunity to better oneself. The applicant never had a bad report and earned a promotion to E-4 and then to E-5 on the fast track. The applicant states every assignment or school the applicant attended, the applicant gave it all and always finished with top marks. The family was growing, was excelling in the Army and reenlisted for five more years. On 11 September 2001, the applicant was conducting drills on Fort Myers, when a low flying plan passed over and crashed into the Pentagon. At the time, the applicant had no idea how much life would change going forward. Within 20 minutes, the unit was on site at ground zero and continued for the next 30 days. Home life fell apart as the wife no longer wanted anything to do with the military life. They filed for legal separation and she moved back home to Tennessee with their son. The applicant is embarrassed and did not know who to talk or who to ask help from. The applicant had always been the type of person who never needed to ask for help. The applicant was a hard worker and never had given up on anything before. The applicant began to have mood swings and acting odd without knowing why. The applicant became concerned and sought medical treatment; the applicant was diagnosed with bipolar / manic depression. The applicant was given medication and for the next few months was an emotional blank. In December 2001, the applicant committed an off base crime to pay for the wife and son to move away. The applicant knows apologizing for these actions does not cover the remorse or feelings about the actions. In February 2002, the applicant was beginning to get life back in order upon being sent to Air Assault School. Upon completing the course, the company commander recommend that the applicant become the Regimental NCOIC of land and ammo requisitions. This was an unexpected honor for the applicant and a career. The applicant is currently incarcerated and has been using time to better oneself and rebuild bridges with family and community. The applicant is hoping that the military records reflect the kind of person and Soldier the applicant was and that it will outweigh this huge mistake. An upgrade will help continue to right the past and move forward with life. 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 no in-service or post- service behavioral health diagnoses. In summary, the applicant did not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 February 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was convicted by a civil court for the offense of burglary, robbery an abduction. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 December 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 13 December 2002, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 January 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / GED / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 4 years, 11 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 April 1998 - 30 October 2000 / HD 31 October 2000 - 23 January 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, EIB / The applicant's service record reflects he was awarded the NCOPDR, however, the award is not reflected on his DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: July 2001 - March 2002 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Court Document from the Circuity Court of The City of Alexandria Virginia, dated 18 October 2002, reflects the applicant was found guilty of: one count of Burglary; two counts Robbery; and, two counts Abduction. The applicant was sentenced to incarceration with the Virginia Department of Corrections for the term of: 20 years for Burglary, and 20 years for Robbery, and 20 years for Robbery and 20 years for Abduction and 20 years for Abduction. The total sentence imposed is 100 years. The sentences ran consecutive with one another and consecutive with any other sentences imposed. The Court suspended all but 20 years of the sentence, for a period of 20 years, for a total suspension of all but 20 years, upon condition of good behavior and supervised probation for 20 years. The applicant was required to pay costs of $1877 plus attorney's fees. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a self-authored statement. 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 general (under honorable conditions).. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with: bipolar / manic depression. However, the service record contains no evidence of a bipolar / manic depression diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 5 April 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 AR20170012732 1