1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 March 2018 b. Date Received: 20 March 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, that he was wrongfully charged. The applicant contends that his wife was the guilty party; he was pulled in by being her husband. He didn't do anything wrong, he was forced to go through a separation board. He went through the chain of command but was not successful and was discharged. He was an E-6 promotable and on orders to Fort Knox. He contends that he had four combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 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 and had repeated contacted with FAP, primarily as the offender. Post-service, he holds diagnoses of Depressive and Anxiety Disorders NOS, but is not service connected for a psychiatric condition. While liberal consideration was applied, possessing and distributing drugs, intimidating and harassing witnesses, and assaulting his wife are not a natural progression or normal sequela of the applicant's Adjustment Disorder or IPV perpetration. The applicant is 90% service-connected from the VA for medical conditions. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 January 2021, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 November 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for violating a general regulation, AER 600-1, dated 20 May 2009 by possessing drug paraphernalia in a military installation on 29 February 2016, Between 8 September 2015 and 29 February 2016, by wrongfully possessing and distributing marijuana; On diver's occasions between 29 February 2016 and 5 May 2016, wrongfully intimidating and harassing SGT A.H., and Ms. D.W., witnesses who had identified the applicant's wife as a marijuana dealer; and On or about 19 November 2016, assaulting his wife by pushing her with his hand. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 August 2017, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 15 September 2017, the separation authority having reviewed the administrative separation proceedings pertaining to the applicant determined that a board of members be appointed under the provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-7 and AR 15-6, Chapter 5, to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the United States Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for Commission of a Serious Offense and whether the applicant should e issued an honorable, general (under honorable conditions discharge, or other than honorable discharge certificate. On 19 September 2017, the applicant was notified to appear before an Administrative Separation Board on 2 October 2017. On 2 October 2017, the Administrative Separation Board was convened, the applicant appeared along with his legal counsel. The board having carefully considered all admitted evidence and testimony, made the findings and recommendations as follows: The allegation that between on or about 8 September 2015 and on or about 29 February 2016, the applicant wrongfully possessed marijuana was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the finding did warrant separation; and The allegation that between on or about 8 September 2015 and on or about 29 February 2016, the applicant wrongfully distributed marijuana was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The finding did warrant separation. On 3 October 2017, in view of the above findings, the board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the United States Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 January 2014 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 16 years, 3 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 August 2001 to 6 January 2003 / HD RA, 7 January 2003 to 28 September 2006 / HD RA, 29 September 2006 to 18 January 2011 / HD RA, 19 January 2011 to 14 January 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (8 May 2012 to 24 February 2013) and Iraq (23 February 2003 to 20 February 2004; 10 February 2005 to 16 February 2006; and 12 September 2008 to 14 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-6, AAM, AGCM-5, NDSM, ACM-CS, ICM-CS-4, MUC-5, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, OSR-5, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2013 to 30 April 2014, Among The Best 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015, Among The Best 1 May 2015 to 30 April 2016, Highly Qualified 1 May 2016 to 31 May 2017, Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report, dated 13 September 2016, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for wrongful possession of marijuana. Law Enforcement Report, dated 15 December 2016, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for assault consummated by battery. General Officer Administrative Reprimand, dated 7 April 2017, for becoming involved in his wife's marijuana distribution operation, endangering the health and welfare of his children, harassing and intimidating members of the Ansbach military community, and physically assaulting his wife. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 July 2017, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative actions including administrative separation proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 November 2017, indicates the applicant had a BH Diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, NOS. It was noted that there was no evidence that the applicant had a psychological condition that did not meet the retention standards of AR 40-501 and AR 635-200. The applicant did not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board. There was no evidence that the applicant had a substance abuse disorder or was in need of a substance abuse evaluation or treatment. The applicant was cleared from a Behavioral Health standpoint for any administrative proceedings the command deemed necessary. Report of Medical Examination, dated 6 November 2017, makes reference in block 77 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) of back pain, anxiety, and vitamin D deficiency. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; 17 character letters; and one personal rebuttal. 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 under other than 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or distribute illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a noncommissioned officer. The applicant, as a noncommissioned officer, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a honorable discharge. 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 his wife was the guilty party in his discharge; he was pulled in by being her husband. He didn't do anything wrong, he was forced to go through a separation board. He went through the chain of command but was not successful and was discharged. He was an E-6 promotable and on orders to Fort Knox. He contends that he had four combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The applicant's contentions were noted; the applicant is to be commended on his in-service accomplishments, however, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). 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 27 January 2021, 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: 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 AR20180005097 3