1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 August 2017 b. Date Received: 11 August 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 pertinent part and in effect, after returning from Afghanistan, the applicant was dealing with undiagnosed PTSD issues. The applicant tried seeking help from the chain of command and the hospital. As part of a Rear-Detachment unit, the applicant was not getting the necessary help. Missing a flight after leave initiated a UCMJ action that subsequently led to discharge. The applicant had no previous UCMJ action and has had no law enforcement issues since discharge. The Veterans Affairs has granted the applicant a 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. 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, Anxiety, Depression, Occupational Problem, and PTSD. Post-service, the applicant has a 70% service-connected rating for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent from his unit without authority on 28 December 2011, through 6 January 2012. He failed to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions. He refused to conduct personal hygiene, refused to conduct physical training, and he did not show up for extra duty and broke restriction on 4 March 2012. He failed to obey his superior noncommissioned officers on multiple occasions. He failed to bring the required items for inspection to formation on 5 March 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 April 2010 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (30 April 2011 to 2 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL; CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to conduct personal hygiene; violating his back to basics counseling statement on numerous occasions; missing formations on numerous occasions; disrespecting NCOs; not following direct orders given by NCOs on numerous occasions; failing to notify his chain of command, 24 hours in advance; violating the terms of his FG Article 15 punishment; disobeying a superior commissioned officer, a field grade officer; failing to have inspection items at in-ranks' inspection; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; and being AWOL. The Commander's Report, dated 3 April 2012, reports a FG Article, dated 2 February 2012, for being AWOL, and the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand; however, the Article 15 is NIF. Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 15 February 2012; indicates vacation of the punishment of forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months imposed on 2 February 2012, due to failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 11 February 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Nine days (AWOL on 28 December 2011 to 5 January 2012) / The applicant returned to his unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 27 February 2012, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues and treatment. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2012, reports an "AXIS I" diagnosis of an "Anxiety Disorder," NOS. Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Rating Decision, dated 11 April 2013, indicates the applicant was assigned a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record, dated 8 August 2017; VA Rating Decision, dated 11 April 2013; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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 general (under 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his 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 which involved suffering from the, at the time, an undiagnosed PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record 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. 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 29 March 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 AR20170015858 5