1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 August 2017 b. Date Received: 5 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was based on using profanity in the presence of a female officer. This was an extreme action, unfair and unjust. The applicant admits these actions were not professional and regrets the incident; however, should not have been discharged based on that incident. The experience during a deployment in Iraq has changed the applicant physically and mentally. A psychologist has assessed the applicant with PTSD. The applicant is now a proud husband and father, and wants the best for the family and future, which primarily motivates the applicant to request a change to current discharge. 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 and Episodic Mood Disorder. Post-service, the applicant submitted a civilian evaluation diagnosing PTSD and Avoidant Personality Disorder. The applicant does not have any VA records. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant missed movement of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, on 4 January 2010. The applicant disrespected his superior commissioned officer, CPT T.L.G., on two occasions on 4 January 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 8 April 2010, pursuant to an offer to plead guilty in a summary court-martial (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 May 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 June 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None (Note, although the applicant's DD Form 214 indicates "None," his reenlistment contract indicates he reenlisted in the MOS of 11B10, Infantryman, and his ERB reflects a PMOS of "11B.") / 4 years, 2 months, 4 days (Note, if the applicant was, in fact according to DA Form 4187, dated 27 May 2010, released from military confinement and returned to PDY status, effective 14 May 2010, a total loss of 25 days, then his DD Form 214 at block 12c, should read "0004" years, "02" months, "17" days, and at block 29, "Under 10 USC: 20100419-20100513.") d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (15 February 2006 to 1 June 2008) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 August 2006 to 1 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; CIB (Applicant's ERB and Commander's Report, dated 30 March 2010, shows the applicant's award consisted of two AAMs. (at page 13 of separation file)) g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for missing movement and behaving with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer. Pretrial Agreement (Offer to Plead Guilty), dated 8 April 2010, reflects that the applicant offered to plead guilty to all charges and its specifications in a summary court-martial, and in doing so, agreed to accept an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge in the action initiated to separate him pursuant to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12, and waived his right to an administrative separation board. The Offer to Plead Guilty was accepted on 16 April 2010. Report of Result of Trial and its associated documents, indicates that the Summary Court- Martial that convened on 19 April 2010, found the applicant guilty of the following charges: Charge I: Violation of Article 87, UCMJ, for missing movement on 4 January 2010. Charge II: two specifications of violating Article 89, UCMJ, for behaving disrespectful towards his superior commissioned officer on two separate occasions on 4 January 2010. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1, 30 days of confinement, and forfeiture of $964 pay for one month. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 38 days (Military Confinement on 19 April 2010 to 26 May 2010) / The applicant was released upon completing his confinement sentence imposed by a summary court-martial on 14 May 2010, according to DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 27 May 2010. (If the applicant was returned to PDY, effective 14 May 2010, then his DD Form 214 should reflect that date; thereby, lost time due to military confinement should be a total of 25 days.) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: An Outpatient Medications medical record, undated, shows prescriptions provided to the applicant for listed behavioral health issues (at page 44 of separation file). Health Records, dated 4, 16, 19 February 2010, 26 January 2010, lists and summarizes behavioral health issues (at pages 53, 51, 52, and 55 of separation file). Applicant's documentary evidence: Psychologist "Confidential Psychological Evaluation," dated 20 February 2017, reflects diagnostic impressions of "309.81 (F43.10) Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Avoidant Personality, and Rule-out Traumatic Brain Injury." The evaluation summarizes that based "on the DSM-V," the applicant "meets full criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 27 August 2017, with congressional correspondence; applicant-authored statement; two Physical Profiles, dated 3 June 2009 and 21 December 2009; Individual Sick Slip, dated 3 January 2010; and Confidential Psychological Evaluation, dated 20 February 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's documentary evidence reflects that he sought therapy for the symptoms of PTSD, and that he is currently employed. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the serious incident of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues after his deployment, and being diagnosed with PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Although the applicant did not raise any issues with any administrative information on his DD Form 214, and should the applicant desire to correct any information on his DD Form 214, the applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 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 3 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 AR20170013977 1