1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 July 2017 b. Date Received: 14 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the last months of his deployment his platoon sergeant, instructed orders to the specialist (him) at the time, an order that was not in the best interest of his firing squad, due to combat fatigue. He contends that he truly believed that his combat experience and exposure to the stressors of combat made him make a bad judgement with this isolated incident. He is grateful for his service with the United States Army and truly his exposure during his deployment contributed to the issues that resulted in his discharge. He contends his First Sergeant, stated that for the past two years there had been no issues, he attempted to seek assistance with the Chaplain about his issues and before he know it he was being discharged. He sincerely prays unto the United States Army for a good sound judgment and that he was a good Soldier that had an isolated incident take place. He is very grateful for his time in the United States Army. 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) there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct, which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. The Applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD and mental status at the time of the misconduct mitigate the misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 March 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (on numerous occasion), sleeping while being posted as a sentinel, and disobeying a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 March 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 March 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 April 2005 / 3 year, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13D10, Field Artillery Autom / 1 year, 11 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (4 December 2005 to 15 December 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 9 April 2006, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 15 April 2006, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on (two occasions). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $333, and extra duty for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 29 July 2006, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and sleeping while posted as a sentinel. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $297 pay per month for one month (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days. Several negative counseling statement for various acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and DD Form 214. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 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 seeks relief contending that the last months of his deployment his platoon sergeant, instructed orders to the specialist (him) at the time, order that were not in the best interest of his firing squad, due to combat fatigue. He contends that he truly believed that his combat experience and exposure to the stressors of combat made him make a bad judgement with this isolated incident. He is grateful for his service with the United States Army and truly his exposure during deployment contributed to the issues that resulted in his discharge. He contends his First Sergeant, stated that for the past two years there had been no issues, he attempted to seek assistance with the Chaplain about his issues and before he know it he was being discharged. He sincerely prays unto the United States Army for a good sound judgment and that he was a good Soldier that had an isolated incident take place. He is very grateful for his time in the United States Army. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends he was a good Soldier who just made a bad judgment. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. The applicant contends that he truly believed that his combat experience and exposure to the stressors of combat made him make a bad judgement with this isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends that he sought assistance with the Chaplain; however, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the other numerous Army community services like the Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20170014516 1