1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 November 2017 b. Date Received: 13 November 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 served six years on active duty and served the country in Iraq, where he received the Combat Action Badge. He served his country honorably and because of the hardship that he experienced in Iraq, he now suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He states, because this mental illness was not addressed while he was in service, he used alcohol as a way to escape his illness. He now receives mental health treatment at a VA outpatient clinic and his life has been in order ever since he began receiving treatment. He believes the Army was unjust in discharging him with a general characterization of service, when he had only outstanding work up until he returned from Iraq. He states, his medical treatment, while in the Army was inadequate and he believes there are many misdiagnoses and medical errors, which reflect medical malpractice and caused him pain and suffering. 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. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, PTSD does not mitigate being found guilty of a sexual offense. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 February 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 December 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had been found guilty by a civil court of competent jurisdiction of the charge of sexual offense in the fourth degree. This misconduct brought discredit and was prejudicial to good order and discipline while continuing to violate the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 December 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 December 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 June 2005 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 94F20, Special Electronic Device Repairer / 5 years, 8 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 June 2002 - 19 June 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (8 January 2004 - 3 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, JMUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, MOVSM, CAB g. Performance Ratings: May 2005 - April 2006 / Among The Best 1 May 2006 - 2 March 2007 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 7 March 2007, for physically controlling a vehicle, while the alcohol concentration in his blood and breath equaled or exceeded the applicable limit under subsection (b) as shown by chemical analysis (30 April 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $989 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 30 April 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (On Post); and, Failure to Drive Designated One Way Direction on Posted Roadway (On Post). CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 28 June 2007, reflects an investigation had established insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the applicant committed the offense of Indecent Assault. SPC [redacted] reported the applicant penetrated her vagina without her consent. The applicant denied the allegation SPC [redacted] made. Interviews and physical evidence could not corroborated SPC [redacted] report. Further, the investigation did not diminish the integrity of credibility of SPC [redacted]. District Court of , court document, dated 18 July 2007, reflects the applicant sentenced to one year of confinement, which was suspended and six months of probation for each of the charges of: Assault- Second Degree and Sex Offense Fourth Degree. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 July 2007, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two letters of support; and, a copies of his VA medical records. 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 that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army and that many of his conditions were misdiagnosed. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. Further, the applicant's contentions rewarding a misdiagnosis, 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 contends that he has been diagnosed with PTSD and now receives treatment from the VA for his condition. 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 25 July 2007, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, 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. Further, 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while serving in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements 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 10 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 AR20180001148 1