1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 September 2017 b. Date Received: 22 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there are times where units skip standard operating procedures and find loopholes or a short cuts to maintain the tempo of the unit mission. This is not technically the proper way to handle the situation, but if it passes on paper, then little is said with the command team when turning in reports. The applicant states, this is the best way to define his situation. Medical records will reflect that the applicant should have been medically discharged in 2011, based on PSTD, and, a level of hopelessness to where the applicant once had suicidal ideology. The applicant is a man of integrity, as a noncommissioned officer, and had an obligation to speak the truth always. The applicant notified the chain of command of an off-base legal matter in another state involving a DWAI that was ongoing, and was still dealing with the loss of a friend that was recently buried. The applicant felt responsible for the loss. The command team had poor experience with taking care of Soldiers with combat stress issues. The applicant agreed to be transparent with the command team, until learning that the intent from them was to betray trust and confidence bestowed in them to paint the applicant out to be reckless in nature. They did not realize, nor care to ask or obtain any further information from the applicant regarding an accident that occurred in March 2015, which if granted an audience inside Washington, the applicant will disclose. The applicant refused to speak about the grounds of the legal matters of the case, they conducted a CID investigation, which came back differently from the verdict of the courtroom final decision/outcome. The service record reflects that the applicant had a BAC of .187, when the verdict inside of an official courtroom was 0.00 BAC level. As far as due process, the applicant believes the Army stripped the applicant of his rights as an American and casted judgement before proven guilty of anything. In the eyes of the command, the applicant was guilty before proven innocent as reflected in the paperwork filed by the command team and attached with the court documentation. The applicant states the command did not stop at that issue either. The unit immediately casted judgement upon the applicant and annotated in an NCOER that the applicant had violated SHARP policies after experiencing a break up in a relationship. The break up resulted in another court matter on grounds of aggravated harassment, where the applicant was accused of saying something that had not been proven in a court of law. The applicant was not convicted of these charges, but according to the military, was once again guilty before proven innocent. The applicant attended mental health, wherein the counselor's immediately sought a medical discharge, but once the command team was informed, they annotated in the record that the applicant was not deserving of "any VA assistance or benefits." They believed that the applicant was faking a medical condition from 2011. The applicant lost confidence in the unit's ability to support and sought outpatient treatment and was hospitalized. The applicant attended ASAP and ultimately was on the edge of suicide and did not want to be around anyone from the unit due to the lack of trust, faith and confidence. The applicant lost so much trust in the Department of Defense that it has been hard to submit this request to the review board, given the amount of errors that were made. What the applicant finds really disturbing is there were that notable public trials, had more respect for the judicial proceedings than the unit. The applicant will never understand how a civilian court room had more understanding of a medical conditions in both of the court cases than the Army. The applicant states, there are improper annotations on the DD Form 214, wherein the MOS reflects 11C, when the actual MOS was 11B, Infantryman. This error reflects the intent that the command team's focus was more on punitive actions, than on the obvious errors that would follow the applicant for the rest of life. The unit's actions made the applicant believe that the Army's suicide prevention, Army Once Source, Crisis hotline and any other combat stress outreach slogan stating, "one suicide is one too many" was a clear joke and a means to "check the box," within the armed forces. If this statement is proven false, then it would be better suited to place these accusations with those who have made them possible, in this case it would be the command team. The applicant believes the discharge characterization was in fact inadequate and improper in nature. The records placed in the file cannot be amended or changed, except the characterization and NCOER, which levied false accusations against the applicant. When the applicant refused to sign the NCOER, it was still placed in the service record. The hope is that this request for an upgrade will be considered and upon completion, does not desire an apology on behalf of the armed forces. The applicant expected much more from leadership, but instead was shown what really mattered to them, which was speedy judgement and punitive actions, as reflected in the NCOER and DD Form 214. Rather than support a Soldier who needed help, the command team broke the applicant. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bereavement, Chronic PTSD, Insomnia, Major Depression, Cannabis Abuse, Marital Problem, Personality Disorder, and Suicidal Ideation. Post-service, the applicant has a 80% service-connected rating for PTSD through the VA. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 May 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: 12 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 21 July 2015, he violated a lawful order issued by 1LT T; On or about 11 July 2015, he wrongfully communicated a threat to Ms. W, a threat, to wit: " I'm going to come in through your window and fuck you in your ass and your pussy whether you like it or not." On 18 March 2015, he drove under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.182 percent; and, Additionally during his current term of enlistment, he had engaged in the following misconduct: On 27 May 2015, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0700 Accountability Formation at Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 15 September 2015, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11C20, Indirect Fire Infantry / 11 years, 5 months / 19 days / The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects his MOS as 11C20, however, evidence in the service reflects his correct MOS should be 11B20, Infantryman. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 May 2004 - 16 January 2007 / HD RA, 17 January 2007 - 23 January 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (9 July 2009 - 15 July 2010 / 28 April 2011 - 3 September 2011), Kuwait (11 October 2013 - 23 June 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-3CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, USN PUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 20 September 2012 - 19 September 2013 / Fully Capable 20 September 2013 - 19 September 2014 / Fully Capable 20 September 2014 - 15 January 2015 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Uniform Summons and Complaint / Penalty Assessment, Colorado Springs, dated 18 March 2015, reflects the applicant was charged with: Drove Vehicle While Impaired by Alcohol or Drugs; Drove Vehicle with Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08 or More; Careless Driving Caused Bodily Injury; Failed to Stop for Traffic Control Signal at Place Required; and, Compulsory Insurance-failed to Present Evidence of Insurance Upon Request. State of New York, Village Court document, dated 17 July 2015, reflects the applicant was charged with Aggravated Harassment-2ND. State of Colorado, court document, dated 17 August 2015, reflects the applicant plead guilty to the charge of Driving While Ability Impaired. The charge of Driving under the Influence was amended and dismissed along with the four remaining charges. FG Article 15, dated 25 September 2015, for wrongfully disobeying a lawful order by operating his privately owned vehicle on post while his driving privileges were suspended (21 July 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. 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 3 August 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant met the criteria for Chronic PTSD. The applicant had a significant and well documented behavioral health history that demonstrate that his symptoms had consistently interfered with his military performance and that they would continue to do so despite further treatment. The applicant was not cleared by the provider to proceed with administrative separation and he would be referred to the medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD; Alcohol Abuse; and, Antisocial Personality Disorder. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 1 October 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD and Antisocial Personality Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored statement; and, court documents. 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. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 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 his MOS is incorrect on his DD Form 214. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. 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 applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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 contends his command considered him guilty of charges that he had not been convicted of by a court and stated he did not deserve VA benefits. However, 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. The applicant contends that he was diagnosed with PTSD and was going through a medical evaluation board. However, Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board and is subsequently processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court- martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical process is stopped and the board report is filed in the member's medical record. 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 1 May 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 AR20170014275 4