1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 August 2017 b. Date Received: 29 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served honorably for 26 months before receiving an Article 15. The applicant receives 100 percent disability for sleep apnea. 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 Mild Sleep Apnea, Occupational Problem, and Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The applicant is 70% service-connected for Adjustment Disorder and 50% for Sleep Apnea from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Depressive Disorder NOS, Unspecified Anxiety, ADHD, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, and Borderline Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant had a diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to go to his prescribed place of duty x4 (9 April 2011, 3 May 2011, 11 May 2011 and 30 June 2011); he failed to obey a general order (10 April 2011); he disobeyed a lawful order (7 May 2011); and he lied to a senior non-commissioned officer (24 May 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 August 2011, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 August 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2009 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Operations / 2 years, 6 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 15 April 2011, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (9 April 2011); having knowledge of a lawful order issued by CPL P., to go check and refill the outside line, an order which it was your duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by not completing a mission that was instructed by his team leader to complete (8 April 2011); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. 26 May 2011, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $733 pay for two months was vacated for the new offense of without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions between (6 May 2011 and 20 May 2011). Of note, the Article 15 did not stipulate the forfeiture was suspended. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 2 February 2011, indicates the applicant had a problem with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Also, psychiatric diagnosis or condition deferred on Axis II and Axis III. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 June 2011, relates the applicant had Axis I diagnosis of occupational problem and Axis III, sleep apnea, see medical records. He met retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warrants disposition through medical channels. His TBI screen was negative and he had no significant signs or symptoms of TBI. His PTSD screen was positive but he did not have clinically significant signs that warrant disposition through MEB channels. He was deemed psychiatrically cleared for any administrative (or judicial) action deemed appropriate by command. VA Letter, dated 28 August 2017, relates the applicant was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS). VA Letter, dated 28 August 2017, the author of this letter points out he had seen the applicant for mental health services related to an adjustment disorder since June 2017. Although he had received mental health services from a previous provider since September 2016. He is 100 percent service connected combat veteran. Of note, the record of evidence does not substantiate the applicant served in combat. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293 (four pages); letter, Director, Case Management Division; three letters, VA Medical Center; self-authored statement; and a character / support statement. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he served honorably for 26 months before receiving an Article 15. 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 further contends he receives 100 percent disability for sleep apnea. The applicant submitted a VA Letter that shows he is 100 percent service connected combat veteran. Of note, the record of evidence does not substantiate the applicant served in combat. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, this statement did not 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 8 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 AR20170016571 5