1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 December 2017 b. Date Received: 19 January 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believes a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place in this case. The lack of detail and failure to provide evidence is obvious in the military investigation records. The applicant has evidence from a third party that the investigator in the case is either a liar, or was gravely mistaken, which the applicant will prove with the evidence provided. The applicant has read through the case and is saddened to know this caused a career to end. Overall, it worked out for the best and the applicant thanks God for allowing the applicant to come home from a toxic environment early. Looking back, the fact that the applicant lost the GI Bill benefits greatly affects the applicant even from a mental perspective and has been depressed thinking about how the applicant is no longer able to attend school. The applicant requests the Board help correct this grievance and review the investigation to see the haphazard work of the Military Police Investigations team. The prosecution hardly made a case nor fully explained their thought process or the charges against the applicant. The applicant believes the entire process was extremely one sided, wherein the applicant was denied the ability to be judged by any resemblance of a tribunal or court, but also was denied the ability to communicate with the investigators as the lawyer was present. An important aspect is the fact that the applicant had very little opportunity to defend oneself legally. After consulting with the lawyer, the applicant agreed to talk with the military police on the record, so the applicant could explain the situation. The first time the applicant spoke with investigators, the applicant chose to waive one's rights and provide testimony to them, but receded because the applicant feared the aggressive tone and one sidedness of the conversation. Though the applicant offered to meet up and talk about the events, the meeting never occurred and during that time, was informed by the first sergeant that the applicant would be separated from the Army; and, instantly it was over. The applicant was not permitted to have a hearing because of rank and the type of characterization of the discharge. The applicant had requested the opportunity to receive a court-martial, so the applicant could tell the story to a jury, but in the end, the applicant was swiftly removed from the Army through a sloppy investigation and a lifelong sentence of serious misconduct. The applicant's only recourse was to write or provide a letter in defense, which the applicant wrote three such letters. The applicant understands the military justice system is different than what most people are afforded, but believes the case was disrespectful towards the applicant and the military justice system. The applicant believes it is in injustice that a harmful verdict against the applicant would follow the applicant for life and take away the ability to use benefits to which the applicant contributed. The military justice system is designed to deliver swift verdicts in a time of limited capabilities, such as a deployed wartime environment; and, the implementation of these policies in combination with a lackadaisical case in a peacetime setting is the result of laziness and agenda pushing. The investigators and prosecutors used every shortcut at their disposal in the case against the applicant and did so while hardly building a case. The case was rapidly passed off from office to office collecting the support and signatures needed with no questions asked. The applicant states the process was a miscarriage of justice through an abundance of flaws in the case. During the first and only conversation the applicant had with Investigator F., the applicant was told he owed USAA thousands of dollars for missed payments. The investigator used this as the applicant's motive to produce a false statement to the police. This accusation was simply not true, and the applicant told the investigator at the time. Since the applicant's arrival in Germany, the applicant had not even had USAA, but nevertheless the applicant was called a liar and a cheat and as a result, the applicant decided to stop talking before talking with a lawyer. A review of Investigator F.'s statement, one will find that the investigator mentions the applicant's supposed debt, and the evidence provided proves not only was Investigator F. horribly mistaken or lying, but was contrary to USAA policies on multiple levels. The applicant provides the Board with evidence of a letter from an insurance company explaining the applicant's claim was accepted and paid, which proves the investigators were alone in accusing the applicant of a crime, and all other parties found no problem with the situation. A review of the original charge sheet will show that two of the charges were dropped without explanation and proves they had not made up their own minds about what had happened. The applicant states, if they were correct and the applicant had made a false statement, they would have no reason to suspect the applicant ever "drove a vehicle" without proper registration. The two charges simply cannot coexist because they contradict each other. A letter from the applicant's first line supervisor at the time, reflects the applicant was not alone in the defense and was appreciated and supported by some companions. The letter also helps to highlight the generally toxic environment in which the applicant found oneself at the time. The applicant states the separation was in direct violation of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-2c, which states, commanders will not take action prescribed in this chapter instead of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct from the harsher penalties that may be imposed under the UCMJ. The applicant believes this regulation was written to protect people such as oneself from the lack of rights provided in an administrative discharge. If the Army truly believed the applicant was a criminal with intent to harm the American people, they should have treated the applicant as such and sent the applicant to court and prison. The Army should not have swept the applicant away with a regulation mainly intended to rid Soldiers that have a history of minor offences and problems. The applicant is not perfect in this situation and at the time, was dealing with serious depression issues, which still linger. The applicant thanks God for the strength to write this appeal. The applicant was depressed, confused allowed oneself to be fooled and taken advantage of by a foreign girl just because she was pretty. The applicant put oneself in a hard spot and was looking for a way out, when the applicant was taken advantage of. The applicant will always be cautious of strangers offering to help when far away from home. The applicant pleads with the Board to take a second look at the investigation and return honor and education benefits. 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 Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, Alcohol Abuse, Polysubstance Abuse, Mood Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant is 40% service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 April 2020, 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 2 March 2016, he made a false official statement and, on or about 10 March 2015, he displayed insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 July 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 August 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89D10, EOD Specialist / 3 years, 6 months 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 5 May 2016, reflects after an investigation, the staff JAG opined that there was sufficient evidence to believe the applicant committed the offenses of: False Official Statement; Operating an Unregistered Privately Owned Vehicle; and, Operating an Uninsured Privately Owned Vehicle. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 June 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any 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: unspecified mood disorder (history) Work stress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; two self-authored statements; two USAA Manager for International Policy Service letters; Allied Solutions letter; Praetorian Insurance Company Settlement Summary; USAA International Operations letter; third party letter; DA Form 2708. 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 14-12c 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 his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's 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. The applicant contends the separation process was flawed and based on a flawed investigation. However, 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. Further, evidence of the record reflects the applicant was counseled specifically on making a false official statement and for displaying insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer, which were the specific reasons for his discharge. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends investigators and prosecutors used every shortcut at their disposal in the case against the applicant and did so while hardly building a case. However, the underlying investigation does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service unspecified mood disorder (history) work stress; 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 16 June 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant's performance. The author recognized his good performance while in the Army; 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, the 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 3 April 2020, 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 AR20180000997 1