1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 June 2017 b. Date Received: 28 June 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, the discharge was not equitable because it was based one single disciplinary action, which was not an accurate representation of the full term of service. In 19 months of military service there were other potential disciplinary events listed in the file, but none of those were substantiated with evidence or conviction and therefore could not be considered part of discharge. The applicant enlisted in the infantry and after assignment to the new unit, deployed to Afghanistan. The applicant accepted the challenge and was able to successfully integrate into the platoon's culture. While in Afghanistan, the platoon served in some of the most unforgiving terrain of the country. Shortly after arriving, the applicant was selected as the platoon leader's gunner, which required the applicant to stand guard as the eyes and ears of the platoon and to provide additional artillery support to the troops on the ground. The applicant contributed to every mission, regardless if it meant putting oneself in imminent danger. In many cases, the applicant served as foot patrol and actively engaged in fire fights with the enemy. The applicant served in Afghanistan for seven months and earned many awards. In 2011, the applicant began to experience symptoms that would later be diagnosed as stress- induced Grave's disease, a dysfunction of the thyroid. Before diagnosis, the applicant had some of the symptoms, which in part, impacts the hormone system and dramatically impacts processing, decision-making and judgment. An undiagnosed Grave's disease commonly mirrors anxiety disorder or clinical depression in which dramatic changes of behavior and emotion are common. Persons experience memory loss and personality changes including a loss of personal interest and initiative. The applicant and the doctor believed that these issues were beyond the applicant's physical control and were what led to the decisions made, which resulted in disciplinary action. Upon discharge from the military, the applicant was diagnosed and immediately began treatment for Grave's disease. The treatment included a pair of procedures labeled Radioactive Iodine Therapy and Radiation Therapy. Until the hormone dosage was balanced in late 2013, the applicant continued to suffer from all of the symptoms. Once able to take control of the health, the applicant was able to begin to establish and contribute to the community. During the last three years, the applicant has coached a local age-group swim team. This experience as a swim coach has taught the applicant to interact and work well as part of a team. The applicant has taken leadership roles with Allied Barton Security Services as a site supervisor at the Art Institute of San Bernardino. Currently, the applicant works with the San Bernardino Police Department and soon will start a new position as Park Ranger, responsible for the safety of people throughout the community's parks. The applicant has consistently worked towards establishing a proud life and contributes to the local community. The applicant has married and hopes to start a family in the immediate future. The applicant and wife are passionate about building a family that values and contributes to their community and that serves the country. The applicant wants to serve in law enforcement and the Army gave provided valued skills. The applicant learned the importance of discipline and how to carry out orders without question or complaint. The Afghanistan deployment instilled a sense of gratitude and pride in the life that the applicant is able to build. Recently, the applicant acquired an additional range of skills and education that makes the applicant a valuable resource to any police department. The applicant believes the discharge has prevented access to these opportunities. The applicant accepts responsibility for unauthorized actions and believes that the impact of discharge is disproportional. The applicant's previous military record and the health issues have appropriately forfeited eligibility for any and all military benefits. The applicant desires an upgrade to allow pursuit of a career that the applicant is appropriately trained for, build a family, and become a contributing member of society lo help facilitate the continuing success of the country. 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, Opioid Dependence, Opioid Withdrawal, Cocaine Abuse, and Cannabis Abuse. VA records indicate that the applicant is 20% service-connected. 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 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 February 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 January 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He disobeyed an order restricting him to Fort Carson, Colorado, by going off post on 28 September. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 January 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 January 2011 /General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 March 2009 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 10 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 November 2009 - 31 May 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NATOMDL, ARCOM-2, GWOTSM, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 15 September 2010, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (31 August 2010); for being AWOL (between 1 and 2 September 2010); and, for wrongfully appropriating a truck, of a value of more than $500, the property of PFC S. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $724 pay (suspended); extra duty for 45 days; and, restriction for 30 days. Military Police Report, dated 28 September 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Larceny of Private Motor Vehicle - Automobile, Truck, Van, Boat, or Aircraft ($100 & Over); (On Post); and, Housebreaking-of a Barracks (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 1 October 2010, reflects the applicant committed the following offense: AWOL-Surrendered to Military/Civilian Authorities (On Post). Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 1 September 2010; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 2 September 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 days (AWOL, 1 September 2010 - 2 September 2010) / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 15 November 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety Disorder NOS, Opioid Dependence (in remission). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; a self-authored statement; ten character statements; and, medical treatment records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has coached his local age- group swim team and has obtained employment with the San Bernardino Police Department and contributes to his community. 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 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 medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 15 November 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. 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 AR20170013326 1