1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 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, growing up, all the applicant ever wanted to be was ARMY. When the applicant finally made that a reality, the applicant was too immature to handle the responsibilities of serving our great nation. The applicant made mistakes, crucial mistakes that eventually led to discharge. The applicant feels as though the discharge does not define the applicant as a person, it does not show one's true character. The applicant served with honor and represented our nation best the applicant could. At the time before discharge, during the events leading to dismissal, the applicant was screaming for help. About the time the unit was re-integrating back into their garrison life from there Iraqi deployment, the applicant was suffering from depression and was on a downward spiral. The applicant was never offered any help from the chain of command. The applicant was punished for actions that showed a downward trend, no one ever saw past the insubordination, to see what was really going on. Thus, the applicant was discharged from the Army under Honorable Conditions (General). Although this does not justify the actions, the applicant truly needed mental help to save the applicant from this self-destruction the applicant was causing. However, the applicant has learned through the years. The applicant has learned that essentially dug oneself a hole that the applicant could've easily avoided with proper treatment. The applicant has gone through various interventions, talking with the professionals and receiving the needed treatment. The applicant has reached milestones in life that show the applicant has since moved on from the immature behavior demonstrated in the Army. Since discharge, the applicant has served our nation in other ways and has dedicated time overseas as a civilian contractor providing support for the US ARMY in Kuwait, as an Avionics Technician working on UH-60 Blackhawks; worked on military programs in the aviation field for companies such as Boeing, and Moog. Now, the applicant would like to get into law enforcement, and would like to finish college to getting a degree. An honorable discharge will help immensely with life goals, and help the applicant serve our nation further. The applicant has learned, grown, and is pleading a case now so the applicant may continue this self-growth. An Honorable Discharge would change life. The applicant is asking for this so the applicant may redeem oneself; the applicant is asking for another chance, so that the applicant can contribute more effort to our nation and community. The adverse actions and the resulting consequences from the time in the military truly do not define who the applicant is. The applicant is asking for an Honorable Discharge so the applicant may properly represent who one truly is, a patriot, leader, and an upstanding individual. 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 Alcohol Abuse, Phase of Life Circumstance Problem, and Anger Management. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Impulse Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of conduct and Dysthymic Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 April 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being disrespectful toward SGT Richardson on 31 January 2012; Failing to report on the following occasions: 13 February 2012, 21 March 2012, and twice on 27 March 2012; and Being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer and failing to obey his lawful order on 2 November 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 June 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 February 2009 / 3 years, 42 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 15N10, Avionic Mechanic / 3 years, 4 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Germany / Iraq (26 July 2010 to 10 November 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: 7 March 2012, for being disrespectful in language towards SGT D.J.R., by saying to him "You're a bitch sergeant," or words to that effect on 31 January 2012. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, extra duty for 14 days (suspended) restriction for 14 days, and oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 February 2012, which indicates the applicant could understand and participated in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was noted in the remarks section that the applicant was currently being chaptered under Chapter 14-12b. He had received three Article 15's and approximately 24 negative counseling statements. He had deployed once during his three years of active duty service. He completed the screening forms for both PTSD and mTBI. The applicant did not met the diagnostic criteria for mTBI and/or PTSD at the time of the assessment. The applicant did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder that the time. He had participated in ASAP twice and completed his last enrollment in October 2011. The applicant was cleared to participate in any administrative proceedings deem necessary. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The Report of Medical History and Report of Medical Examination, makes reference to the applicant having issues with depression and that he was being treated with medication and therapy. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; Report of Medical History; Report of Medical Examination; rebuttal to administrative chapter 14-12b, dated 24 May 2012; Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated 14 December 2011; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since his discharge, he has served our nation in other ways, he has dedicated time overseas as a civilian contractor providing support for the US ARMY in Kuwait, as an Avionics Technician working on UH-60 Blackhawks; worked on military programs in the aviation field for companies such as Boeing, and Moog. 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. 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 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 seeks relief contending he was too immature to handle the responsibilities of serving our great nation. He made mistakes, crucial mistakes that eventually led to him being discharged. He feels as though his discharge does not define him as a person, it does not show his true character. He served with honor and represented our nation best he could. At the time before his discharge, during the events leading to his dismissal, he was screaming for help. About the time his unit was re-integrating back into their garrison life from there Iraqi deployment. He was suffering from depression and was on a downward spiral. He was never offered any help from his chain of command. He was punished for actions that showed his downward trend, no one ever saw past his insubordination, to see what was really going on. Thus, he was discharged from the Army under Honorable Conditions (General). Although this does not justify his actions, he truly needed mental help to save him from this self-destruction he was causing. However, he contends he has learned through the years. He has learned that, he essentially dug himself a hole that he could've easily avoided with proper treatment. He has gone through various intervention, talking with the professionals and receiving the needed treatment. He has reached milestones in his life that show he has since moved on from his immature behavior he demonstrated in the Army. Since his discharge, he has served our nation in other ways, he has dedicated time overseas as a civilian contractor providing support for the US ARMY in Kuwait, as an Avionics Technician working on UH-60 Blackhawks; worked on military programs in the aviation field for companies such as Boeing, and Moog. The applicant's contentions were noted; his service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. The applicant contends that he was too immature at the time of discharge to handle the responsibilities of serving our great nation at the time of 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 at the time before his discharge, during the events leading to his dismissal, he was screaming for help. About the time his unit was re-integrating back into their garrison life from there Iraqi deployment. He was suffering from depression and was on a downward spiral. He was never offered any help from his chain of command. He was punished for actions that showed his downward trend, no one ever saw past his insubordination, to see what was really going on. Thus, he was discharged from the Army under Honorable Conditions (General). Although this does not justify his actions, he truly needed mental help to save him from this self-destruction he was causing. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non- judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The medical documents submitted by the applicant making reference to his issues with depression were noted. However, the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 February 2012, indicates the applicant could understand and participated in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was noted in the remarks section that the applicant was currently being chaptered under Chapter 14-12b. He had received three Article 15's and approximately 24 negative counseling statements. He had deployed once during his three years of active duty service. He completed the screening forms for both PTSD and mTBI. The applicant did not met the diagnostic criteria for mTBI and/or PTSD at the time of the assessment. The applicant did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder that the time. He had participated in ASAP twice and completed his last enrollment in October 2011. The applicant was cleared to participate in any administrative proceedings deem necessary. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that although he was suffering from depression, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Also, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant expressed his desire to get into law enforcement, and would like to finish college to get his degree. An honorable discharge will help him immensely with his life goals, and help him serve our nation further. He has learned, grown, and is pleading his case now so he may continue this self-growth. An Honorable Discharge would change his life, he is asking for this so he may redeem himself; he is asking for another chance, so that he can contribute more of his effort to our nation and his community. His adverse actions and the resulting consequences from his time in the military truly do not define who he is. I am asking for an Honorable Discharge so I may properly represent who he truly is, a patriot, leader, and an upstanding individual. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 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 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 22 April 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20180001026 1