1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 September 2017 b. Date Received: 14 November 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he believes the Board should consider granting him relief, because his misconduct was the first time that he was ever in trouble. He accepts responsibility for his actions and wants the Board to understand that he was young and made a stupid by getting high before deploying to Afghanistan. The reason that he went AWOL was not to escape justice, but because he had let himself down. He realizes that he made the situation worse, but he was so upset with himself because he saw his career go out the window. He states, he had just signed up for selection with the Special Forces and he was planning a career in the Army. He states his unit had a drug problem, wherein a group of noncommissioned officers had failed drug screenings, but they were not punished as harshly as he was. He believes that he should have been punished, but not so harshly. He now suffers from service- connected injuries to include PTSD. He requests the Board to consider that his record was flawless up until that point. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, were reviewed. Because there are no BH or PTSD diagnoses in the documentation, the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 October 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: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 7, dated 26 April 2007, on 15 February 2007, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I: Article 86. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The Specification: Did, on or about 18 November 2005, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: 102d QM Co, 129th CSSB, located at Fort Campbell, KY, and did remain so absent until on or about 16 September 2006. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II: Article 112a. Plea: Guilty. Findings: Guilty. The Specification: Did, at or near Parsons, Tennessee, between on or about 22 September 2005 and on or about 27 September 2005, wrongfully use Methamphetamines. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The Additional Charge: Article 112a. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The Specification: Did, at or near Parsons, Tennessee, between on or about 19 October 2006 and on or about 24 October 2006, wrongfully use Methamphetamines. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Confined for 60 days, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 26 April 2008 / only so much of the sentence, confinement for 60 days, and a bad conduct discharge was approved. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 31 January 2008 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 January 2005 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 December 2003 - 12 January 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order as described in previous paragraph 3c. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 18 November 2005; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 18 December 2005; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 16 September 2006; From "PDY" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 15 February 2007; and, From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 5 April 2007. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 352 days AWOL, 15 November 2005 - 15 September 2006 / NIF CMA, 15 February 2007 - 4 April 2007 / Released upon completion of sentence j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and DD Form 293. 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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment. 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 bad conduct discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not punished as harshly. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. Further, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 now suffers from service-connected injuries to include PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 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 24 October 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 AR20180000286 1