1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 July 2017 b. Date Received: 11 August 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he does not believe he received the proper characterization of service or the narrative reason for his discharge. He states he was initially hazed repeatedly by his chain of command upon his arrival to his unit. He saw things that were not right by military code and when he brought these issues up for investigation, his command did all they could to discredit his name. He served with honor and integrity and he stands by everything he did. He is a United States Army Soldier and he is proud of his service. He would not sit by as the core Soldier disciplines disintegrated in front of his eyes. He requests the upgrade to honorable, because that is how he conducted himself while in uniform. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the review of information available including the applicant's case file, AHLTA and JLV. AHLTA notes indicate multiple Behavioral Health diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depression (recurrent), Malingering, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, PTSD (from childhood trauma). Due to his dramatic, hostile and somewhat inconsistent presentations, he underwent extensive and repeated psychological testing while in the Army. Clinical assessment and testing indicated applicant had significant, underlying maladaptive characterological traits which affected his ability to get along well with others due to his underlying grandiosity, oppositionality, mistrust of others, hostility, anger, lack of empathy and tendency to prevaricate. His diagnosis of PTSD was made by his off post therapist. However, no description of which diagnostic criteria he met was provided. Extensive questioning and testing by credentialed military psychologists and psychiatrists indicated that the applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD: he had never been deployed and did not identify any exposure to threatened death, serious injury or sexual violence. Based on a comprehensive review of his records, intensive psychological examination and rigorous psychological testing, the applicant was diagnosed with the following BH conditions: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (primary), Paranoid Personality Disorder (primary) and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood (chronic, resolving). The applicant's VA records indicate that he has been diagnosed with the following BH diagnoses: Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent/moderate; Panic Disorder without agoraphobia; Borderline Personality Disorder; Paranoid Personality Disorder, Alcohol Dependence. He is 70% service connected by the VA for Mood Disorder. Based on the information available at this time, the applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health disorder for the offenses leading to his discharge from the military. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 October 2017, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (5) and (8) for acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: Between 6 May 2015 and 15 May 2015, while at Fort Hood, Texas, he behaved disrespectfully towards numerous superior commissioned officers. Between 1 May 2015 and 14 May 2015, while at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Fort Hood, Texas, he willfully disobeyed lawful commands of several superior commissioned officers on multiple occasions. Between 1 May 2015 and 5 May 2015, he communicated verbal threats to harm a medical provider at the University of Behavioral Health, and to harm personnel at Fort Sill. This conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 26 June 2015 (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 26 June 2015, the GCMCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: the AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 8 August 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 24 / Master's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 92A, QM, General / 2 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 March 2013 - 7 August 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 8 August 2013 - 10 March 2015 / Not Qualified 5 March 2015 - 16 June 2015 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 June 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depression (Axis I) and Cluster C Personality Disorders (Axis II). The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 22 July 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for an unspecified depressive disorder with anxiety disorder (claimed as anxiety, depression, PTSD and mental health issues). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application; DD Form 149; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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 and a narrative reason change. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, major depression; 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 25 June 2015, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible 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 applicant contends that he was hazed by members of his chain of command; 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 provided a letter from his girlfriend in support of his contention. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct either while serving in the Army or after his discharge; 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 20 October 2017, 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20170013569 3