1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 October 2017 b. Date Received: 30 October 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, he was suffering from an untreated and undiagnosed PTSD. Since his discharge, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and Anxiety Disorder through the VA. He never wanted to leave the Army. His performance as a Soldier was honorable. His mental issues started after returning from deployment. It cost him his marriage and his military career. His record will reflect the drastic change in his behavior and character. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. In summary, the diagnosis of PTSD can be associated with FTRS; however, his condition would not mitigated wrongfully having a loaded weapon in his vehicle and not having a weapon registration record. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 May 2018, 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: 15 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He committed a serious offense for which the specific circumstances of the offense warranted separation and a punitive discharge. Specifically, on 8 March 2013, 11 March 2013, and 5 April 2013, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. On 1 April 2013, he failed to complete the Structured Self-Development Level 1. On 8 June 2013, he violated USARAK Regulation 190-1, by wrongfully having a loaded weapon in his vehicle on post and not having his weapon registration record. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 September 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2010 / 5 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (10 May 2011 to 26 April 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-2; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 26 April 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions, on 8 March 2013, 11 March 2013, and 5 April 2013, and being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to complete the Structured Self-Development Level 1 on 1 April 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Military Police Report, dated 8 June 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey an order. Negative counseling statements for driving on post with a loaded pistol; failing to follow instructions; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed on several occasions; missing an appointment; having to complete a task, the Structured Self-Development Level 1; failing to correct the deficiencies of his uniform; disrespecting an NCO; and failing to inform his chain of command of receiving his divorce decree. FG Article 15, dated 25 July 2013, for wrongfully not having his USARAK Form 277 with his weapon on 8 June 2013, and wrongfully having a loaded weapon in his vehicle on 8 June 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 June 2013, does not provide any diagnosis, and limited to the first page. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 4 June 2013, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. Applicant's documentary evidence: Vet Center letter, dated 28 July 2017, indicates the counselor noted PTSD diagnosis, and VA letter, dated 17 January 2017, indicates the applicant received an evaluation of 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 17 October 2017; Vet Center letter, dated 28 July 2017; VA letter, dated 17 January 2017; 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 incident of misconduct, the applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier, and he knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence 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 were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to these incidents, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 May 2018, 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 AR20170019032 1