1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 April 2012 b. Date Received: 16 April 2012 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 since discharge, the applicant has received care through the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital. It has been brought to the applicant's attention that the applicant suffered from many conditions, to include PTSD, as the most substantial of those. The applicant contends that after returning from Iraq, the applicant was faced with new problems that the applicant did not know how to cope with. The applicant was dealing with a divorce from a woman who left with everything, the unit's morale was in shambles due to a military coup of young Soldiers that wanted to overthrow the government (Fort Stewart F.E.A.R) and unknown to the applicant, was starting on a roller coaster of emotions that would later lead to a diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant contends the discharge was the result of having a non-registered firearm on a military installation. However, the applicant does not see the situation of a scared Soldier as a reason for the applicant to carry the badge of shame, which is anything other than an Honorable Discharge. The DD Form 214 reflects that the applicant carried a weapon to PT formation when this is anything but the case. In a time where battle buddies literally broke into the applicant's house to steal these weapons and use them in a Double Homicide of another Soldier. The applicant was fearful and already feeling like the applicant was still in a war zone. To cope, the applicant did what many veterans would, moved to protect oneself when the applicant could trust nobody. 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 Episodic Mood Disorder, ADHD, Occupational Problems, Depression, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD and 10% for TBI from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, TBI, and Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 September 2019, 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: 6 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for bring a loaded handgun to Physical Training formation, failing to report to duty on numerous occasions, and communicating a threat to another Soldier. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 March 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 5 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 January 2008 to 10 March 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (19 December 2009 to 15 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The unit commander's recommendation memorandum makes reference to the applicant having received a CG Article 15, reason is unknown; however the punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $455.00 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however documents submitted by the applicant show he is receiving 70 percent service connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD (to included his claim for depression and insomnia) 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; WIKIPEDIA page of Fort Stewart F.E.A.R. Group; and a document from Disabilities-VA/DOD e-Benefits that shows the applicant is receiving 70 percent service connected disability for PTSD (to included his claim for depression and insomnia). 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 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 since his discharge it has been brought to his attention that he suffers from many conditions to include PTSD. He contends that after returning from Iraq he was faced with new problems that he did not know how to cope with. He was dealing with a divorce from a woman who left him with nothing while deployed, his units moral was in shambles due to a military coup of young Soldiers that wanted to overthrow the government (Fort Stewart F.E.A.R) and unknown to him he was starting on a roller coaster of emotions that would later lead to his diagnosis of PTSD. The fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available military record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. Furthermore, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or help and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant further contends his discharge was the result of having a non-register firearm on a military installation. However, he does not see the situation of a scared Soldier as a reason for him to carry the badge of shame which is anything other than an Honorable Discharge. His DD Form 214 reflects that he carried a weapon to PT formation when this is anything but the case. In a time where his battle buddies literally broke into his house to steal his weapons and use them in a Double Homicide of another Soldier. He was fearful and already feeling like he was still in a war zone. To cope, he did what many veterans would, he moved to protect himself when he felt like he couldn't trust nobody. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, 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 11 September 2019, 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 AR20180006020 1