1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 June 2017 b. Date Received: 11 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, never harmed anyone or indulged in illegal activities. The applicant contends that the Article 15's were from jokes of verbal spats. The applicant never put any fellow Soldiers in harm's way. The applicant asked for help with stress and was discharged. The applicant also has four infractions which surly cannot be grounds for discharge knowing Sergeant E., who wrote an Article 15, failed numerous drug tests. The applicant asks why was the SGT was not discharged for illegal activity but was discharged for simply arguing while being stressed and not getting help when the applicant asked for it. The discharge was not the worst but it was not fair. The applicant did not go AWOL. The applicant stood firm and did the best under extremely alien circumstances. The applicant hopes that as a fellow Soldier the board will understand that the applicant will never accept defeat and that the applicant will not leave a fallen comrade. The applicant also has an evaluation that if it is 100 percent accurate, it does not sound like the applicant. It also states numerous quotes that don't seem like the applicant but states the applicant cannot manage stress. It is even stated in the assessment why the applicant was never helped when the applicant obviously needed it. 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 depressed mood and Adult Antisocial Behavior. The applicant does not have any BH diagnoses 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 28 February 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 September 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 July 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having received a Summarized Article 15, for disobeying a superior commissioned officer. The punishment imposed was 14 days extra duty on 5 May 2008; Having received a Company Grade Article 15, for five specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty, and disrespecting/disobeying a noncommissioned officer. The punishment imposed consisted of reduction to E-2 and extra duty for 14 days on 20 June 2008; Having received a Field Grade Article 15 for six specifications of disrespecting and disobeying a noncommissioned office and destruction of government property. The punishment imposed consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $673.00 for two months, and extra duty for 45 days on 7 July 2008; and Being counseled for disobeying a superior noncommissioned officer, cleanliness, and leaving his room with high valued items unsecured on 8 July 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 July 2008, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 August 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 January 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / 11 years / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (28 November 2007 to 24 August 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 5 May 2003, for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer to wear the appropriated head gear when operating a military motorized vehicle, or words to that effect. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 20 June 2008, without authority go from his appointed place of duty on 20 June 2008, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer x2 on 13 June 2008, and treating Sergeant M.E., a noncommissioned officer with contempt x2 on 13 June 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2 and extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 7 July 2008, for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 3 July 2008 and 4 July 2008, treating with contempt a noncommissioned officer x3 on 4 July 2008, and without proper authority, willfully damaged by striking with his fist, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of less than $500.00 on 3 July 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $673.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days. Several negative counseling statement for various actions of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 12 July 2008, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for an Adult Antisocial Behavior. It was noted that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentality responsible, and met the requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40- 501. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. The remarks section also noted that the applicant had reported in previous sessions and shared with command his intention to keep getting in trouble until they kick him out. He had proudly reported that he had received six negative counseling statements and three Article 15's in the last six weeks. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and partial documents from his Mental Status Evaluation. 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 14-12b 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 marred the quality of his service by receiving 3 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements. 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, in effect, that he never harmed anyone or indulged in illegal activities. He contends that his Article 15's were from jokes of verbal spats. He never put any of his fellow Soldiers in harm's way. He asked for help with his stress and was discharged. He also has four infractions which surly cannot be grounds for discharge knowing Sergeant E., who wrote him an Article 15, failed numerous drug tests. He ask why was he not discharged for illegal activity but was discharged for simply arguing while being stressed and not getting help when he asked for it. His discharge was not the worst but it was not fair. He did not go AWOL, he stood firm and did his best under extremely alien circumstances. He hopes that as a fellow Soldier the board will understand that he will never accept defeat and that he will not leave a fallen comrade. He also has an evaluation that if it is 100 percent accurate, it does not sound like him. It also states numerous quotes that don't seem like him but states he cannot manage stress. It is even stated in his assessment why he was never helped when he obviously needed it? The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 Also, 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 which resulted in separation action be initiated against him. The applicant further contends that he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims stress at work and not getting the help when he asked for it. While the applicant may believe his stress at work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 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 28 February 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 AR20180002956 1