1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 October 2017 b. Date Received: 5 October 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he had a successful career in the Army with 17 years in service. He had served multiple combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan; earned numerous awards; and, he had five periods of good conduct. He states, after his return from Afghanistan, he started to dive into alcohol as a form of medicating his problems. He now knows that he was, and still is dealing with PTSD. He realizes what he did was a blemish on the Army, but he also states that this one incident does not reflect who he is as a person or who he was as a United States Soldier. Additionally, he requests that, if possible, the Board to restore his rank to SFC. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and behavioral health issues. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, PTSD and OBH do not mitigate the offenses of assault or 4th degree sexual contact. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14, Sec II / JKB / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 1 November 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was convicted of two charges; Fourth Degree Sexual Offense and Second Degree Assault in the state of Maryland. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 2 August 2016, the applicant waived his rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 2 August 2016, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2016 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 December 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 31B1P 8R, Military Police / 16 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 August 1999 - 19 August 2003 / HD RA, 20 August 2003 - 5 July 2005 / HD RA, 6 July 2005 - 29 December 2008 / HD RA, 30 December 2008 - 14 December 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Italy, SWA / Afghanistan (1 March 2010 - 14 February 2011); Iraq (27 April 2003 - 15 August 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-3CS, BSM, ARCOM-2, JSAM, AAM-4, NATOMDL-2, JMUA, MUC-2, PUC, AGCM-5, NDSM, GWOTSM, KSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5 g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2011 - 30 November 2012 / Among The Best 1 December 2012 - 30 November 2013 / Fully Capable 1 December 2013 - 30 November 2014 / Among The Best 30 November 2014 - 19 October 2015 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Circuit Court, State of , court document, dated 12 May 2015, reflects the applicant was found guilty of Sexual Offense 4th Degree-Sexual Contact and Assault -Second Degree. Law Enforcement Report - Final/Collateral, dated 12 January 2016, reflects an investigation determined that the applicant inappropriately touched Ms. H, who was 6 years old, in inappropriate manner. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 270 days (Civilian Confinement, 5 December 2015 - 31 August 2016) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 April 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission; Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder (Axis I). Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 19 October 2016, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD; Major Depressive Disorder; and, Other Specified Trauma and Stressor- Related Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of a VA letter, dated 16 March 2018, which outlines the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, Unspecified depressive d/o (MDD vs r/o bipolar II d/o), which stemmed from an incident in Kuwait. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; and a VA letter. 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, 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. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. At the time of the applicant's discharge, he had been found guilty by civilian authorities for two misdemeanor charges. The applicant received a sentence of 1 and 5 years confinement, respectively, for the two charges. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 12 March 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was able to recognize right from wrong and that he could understand and participate in the administrative proceedings. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant requests that if possible, the Board restore his rank. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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 AR20170019122 1