1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 October 2017 b. Date Received: 27 October 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 discharge was unjust and inappropriate. The discharge carries much stigma and has become a heavy weight in life, as well as, family. The applicant returned from Afghanistan and attempted suicide and the wife was injured saving the applicant's life. The applicant was recommended for a medical discharge and being prescribed proper medication, but instead was treated unfairly from the stigma of a suicide attempt. A prior record review was conducted at Washington, DC on 19 June 2015. 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 Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder, Impulse Control Disorder, Mixed Cluster B Personality traits, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Fort Riley, KS on 20 November 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he wrongfully and willingly discharged a firearm under circumstances such as to endanger the life of his spouse. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 April 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 May 2008 / 5 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 years / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 2 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / SWA / Afghanistan, 10 March 2009 to 8 March 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: State of Alaska Indictment Document, dated 16 March 2011, reflects on 10 October 2010, the applicant was charged with recklessly causing serious physical injury to Ms. D., by means of a dangerous instrument, a firearm and knowingly discharging a firearm at or in the direction of dwelling. Several Anchorage Police Department Reports, dated 10 October 2010 and 11 October 2010, revealed the applicant was the subject of an investigation for misconduct (recklessly firing a weapon), aggravated assault and for a disturbance call. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for lack of motivation and discharging a firearm. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 8 December 2010, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of depression (existed prior to service). He met criteria for expeditious administrative separation in accordance with Chapter 5-17, AR 635 -200. Due to a recent self-harm gesture and hospitalization, he qualified for existing psychiatric condition and this was an option to be considered. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement; sworn statement (two pages); support statement (spouse, two pages); sworn statement (two pages); two recommendations for award; two ARCOM certificates; and a recommendation for award. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. 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 misconduct (serious offense), 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was unjust and inappropriate. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, his discharge carries much stigma and has become a heavy weight in his life as well as his family. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant also contends, he returned from Afghanistan and attempted suicide and his wife was injured saving his life. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, relates he met criteria for expeditious administrative separation in accordance with Chapter 5-17, AR 635 -200. Due to a recent self-harm gesture and hospitalization, he qualified for existing psychiatric condition and this was an option to be considered. Of note, the applicant was discharged for wrongfully and willingly discharging a firearm under circumstances such as to endanger the life of his spouse. The applicant additionally contends, he was recommended for a medical discharge and being prescribed proper medication, instead he was treated unfairly from the stigma of a suicide attempt. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Fort Riley, KS on 20 November 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170017882 1