1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 January 2018 b. Date Received: 16 January 2018 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of his misconduct, he had not been evaluated for PTSD. Post deployment he began seeing a doctor for PTSD symptoms. Currently, he has a 50 percent service connected disability for PTSD, directly related to his deployment in Iraq. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time including the applicant's case files, AHLTA and JLV. AHLTA indicates applicant had several Behavioral Health (BH) contacts. In Jan 2009, he saw BH several times while deployed due to problems with irritability and pending divorce. He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. In July 2009, he presented with increased depressive symptoms. In Oct 2009, he reported ongoing marital problems and vague suicidal ideation. In Dec 2009, he reported increased irritability, nightmares, flashbacks, insomnia, anger symptoms since returning from deployment. He reported he was close to a mortar explosion while in Iraq and was blown over with no loss of consciousness. During this visit, he was diagnosed with Depression NOS and placed on antidepressants. JLV indicates applicant is 50% SC for PTSD. Based on the available documentation, the applicant has a Behavioral Health condition, PTSD, which mitigates some of his offenses. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and the offenses of failing to report and being AWOL. As PTSD is associated with problems with authority figures and oppositionality, there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and his disrespectfulness in language and deportment towards an NCO and failing to obey an order. PTSD is not mitigating for making a false official statement or communicating a threat. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 March 2018, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and prior period of honorable service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. i-service PTSD/OBH symptoms and a post-service diagnosis of PTSD with a 50% VA disability rating), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 7 April 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 April 2008 / 3 years, 9 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / GED / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 5 years, 1 month, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 14 February 2005 - 16 April 2008 / HD IADT, 28 March 2006 - 15 July 2006 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 4 November 2006 - 17 August 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 November 2006 - 14 July 2007) (5 September 2008 - 18 August 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, AFRMM, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 6 January 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on five occasions between 30 October 2009 and 14 December 2009; for disrespectful language and deportment towards and NCO (30 October 2009); for failing to obey a lawful order (21 November and 14 December 2009); for making a false official statement (30 October 2009); and, for wrongfully communicating a threat towards an NCO (30 October and 14 December 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $433 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 19 February 2010; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 4 March 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 18 Days (AWOL, 19 February 2010 - 4 March 2010) / NIF (Confinement, 5 March 2010 - 10 March 2010) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 29 March 2014, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent service connected disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and VA Disability Rating Decision. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about he had not yet been diagnosed with PTSD at the time of his misconduct was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, 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 9 March 2018, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and prior period of honorable service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. i- service PTSD/OBH symptoms and a post-service diagnosis of PTSD with a 50% VA disability rating), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20180001464 1