1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 December 2017 b. Date Received: 20 February 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, that due to the high tempo, high stress of the job as base security and witnessing firsthand the only attack the unit received while serving in Afghanistan. The applicant contends that for this reason the applicant feels that one's attitude might have been off. The applicant was a good Soldier and never failed at duties. The applicant also contends that having the discharge upgraded to full honorable will open up a variety of doors for education benefits, supporting oneself, and better to support for the family. 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 disturbance of emotions and conduct. The applicant is 80% service-connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with mTBI. 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 10 January 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 March 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being derelict in the performance of his duties by misbehaving with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer and being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer 20 September 2010; Being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 16 October 2010; While going from his appointed place of duty, he was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer 17 October 2010; Being disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer on 18 October 2010; Behaving with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer on 7 December 2010 and 9 December 2010; Being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer and was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer 31 January 2011; and Being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer on 26 February 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 March 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 May 2009 / 6 years, 30 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35F10, Intelligence Analyst / 1 year, 11 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (17 June 2010 to 5 April 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, NATOMDL, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 2 November 2010, for being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer by displaying visible enraged expressions of anger and by ripping off his US Army service tape and rank from his uniform and throwing the items on the floor on 20 September 2010, being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer on 20 September 2010 and 17 October 2010, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 16 October 2010 and 17 October 2010, and being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer 17 October 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $378 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 10 January 2011, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment of forfeiture of $378 pay imposed on the applicant was vacated because based on the applicant having treated with contempt a noncommissioned officer by rolling his eyes at him while he was talking to him on 9 December 2010. FG Article 15, dated 17 February 2011, for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, being disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned by failing to stand at the position of parade rest while addressing him, and by saying to another noncommissioned officer "I'm standing right here," and "Fuck it, I don't care," or works to that effect and by failing to stand at the position of parade rest while addressing him, all on 16 December 2010, and being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 31 January 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 21 February 2011, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for an Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Mood and Conduct; ADHD (by history); Bipolar Disorder (by history). It was noted that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participated in the proceedings. The applicant did not demonstrate any signs or symptoms of a mental illness that would impede his ability to proceed with administrative actions deemed necessary by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 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 that due to the high tempo, high stress of his job as base security and witnessing firsthand the only attack his unit received while serving in Afghanistan. He contends that for these reasons he feels that his attitude might have been off. He believes he was a good Soldier and never failed in his duties. The applicant also contends that having his discharge upgraded to full honorable will open up a variety of doors for his education benefits, supporting himself, and better to support for his family. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Furthermore, it should be noted, 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. Also, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 10 January 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 AR20180002981 4