1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 March 2018 b. Date Received: 9 March 2018 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, that because of all of the false accusation that were thrown against him he fell into a dark hole of depression and anxiety that he couldn't get out of and was sent to a mental institution for a few weeks. He is truly ashamed and embarrassed about the situation and when he thinks back on it he was not given the proper ground to fight. The applicant contends he worked with the supply platoon within his unit for 3 months before he was accused of theft. He tried hard to fight the accusation that were formed against him. He even had other NCO's and Officers speak on his behalf. When he went to stand in front of the Battalion Commander, he told her his situation that his car had no A/C and it was the middle of the summer (July 2016) so his window was always down and that he was no thief. He was told to do his extra duty and learn from that mistake which he did. Shortly after that his unit deployed and he was forced to stay back in the rear with another unit. Once deployed his unit received a new command that did not know his situation so it was his word against theirs and he knew he had no chance. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 November 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully appropriating an Aim-point M-68 Combat Optic, the property of the United States Government, and violating CAM Regulation 190-1, paragraph 4-9(a) by wrongfully transporting an Aim-point M-68 Combat Optic in his privately owned vehicle all on 27 August 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 August 2015 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 10 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: US Army Criminal Investigation Command Report of investigation, dated 29 July 2020, makes reference to the applicant having been a subject of investigation for larceny of government property, driving while license suspended, and driver's license required all on 27 August 2016. All chargers were dismissed except for the larceny of government property. A second report makes reference to the applicant having been a subject of investigation for driving while license suspended and driving while post privileges suspended all on 15 September 2016. A third report makes reference to the applicant having been a subject of investigation for driving while post privileges suspended and driver's license required all on 25 April 2017. FG Article 15, dated 28 November 2016, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully transporting an Aim-point M-68 combat optic in his privately owned and wrongfully appropriating an Aim-point M-68 combat optic of a value of about $336.00, the property of the United States Government on 27 August 2016. The punishment received was not find attached with the available documents. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2017, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceeding and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was noted that the applicant met medical retention per AR 40-501 and was therefore cleared for chapter action. The applicant agreed to non-confidential evaluation for the purposes of chapter clearance and consented to release of report to command. 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: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: 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 14-12c 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 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 1 Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, several negative counseling statements and 3 US Army Criminal Investigation Command Reports in reference to him. 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 because of all of the false accusation that were thrown against him he fell into a dark hole of depression and anxiety that he couldn't get out of and was sent to a mental institution for a few weeks. He is truly ashamed and embarrassed about the situation and when he thinks back on it he was not given the proper ground to fight. The applicant contends he worked with the supply platoon within his unit for 3 months before he was accused of theft. He tried hard to fight the accusation that were formed against him. He even had other NCO's and Officers speak on his behalf. When he went to stand in front of the Battalion Commander, he told her his situation that his car had no A/C and it was the middle of the summer (July 2016) so his window was always down and that he was no thief. He was told to do his extra duty and learn from that mistake which he did. Shortly after that his unit deployed and he was forced to stay back in the rear with another unit. Once deployed his unit received a new command that did not know his situation so it was his word against theirs and he knew he had no chance. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service at the time of discharge. 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 6 November 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 / 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 AR20180004464 3