1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 February 2018 b. Date Received: 5 March 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge with its corresponding codes. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the request is based on inequity and impropriety. The applicant excelled in his duties and performance as a Soldier upon his enlistment, and earned multiple superior recognitions by certificates, awards, promotions, and training and assignments. While serving a proud and memorable combat tour, he also suffered from anxiety and depression due to the death of one of his patrols where coalition force members were killed by enemy combatants, and the experience of daily indirect fire attacks. His depression and insomnia has caused him to self-medicate with alcohol to ease the depression and help him sleep. While he suffered, he did not discuss the feelings with anyone because he did not want it to affect his career. (The counsel detailed the circumstances and events surrounding the incidents that led to the applicant's discharge.) The applicant was suffering from PTSD that he was unaware of-he made a mistake when his thinking was clouded. He acknowledged his mistake and apologized to his command. Many senior leadership and those who knew him acknowledged that the incident was out of character for him, but supported and vouched for him due to his strong performance, hard work ethic, and accomplishments at the age of 21. They understood he made a mistake but also knew that as a young Soldier, he should have been given a chance to rehabilitate and continue to contribute to the Army and nation-he had "so much talent, dedication, and love for the Army." They portrayed a young Soldier who was headed to accomplish great things. His current superiors have attested to his strong character and impressive work ethics. The counsel argues that the applicant was not a criminal but was a vulnerable young Soldier who was suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident that led to his discharge. PTSD caused him to make choices and behave in ways that he would never have considered had he been well. His current DD Form 214 should not label him as a person who committed a serious offense forever because it signifies his service to his country-he does not deserve to be permanently labeled a criminal. He took responsibility for his actions-his character, equity and justice should dictate correcting his DD Form 214. The applicant asserts that since his discharge, despite receiving his degree, he found it difficult to obtain employment. However, he is currently employed in a Honda manufacturing assembly line as an associate. He continues battling depression, insomnia, anxiety, and guilt over his experiences in Afghanistan. He has sought help through VA for his behavioral health condition, and in February 2018, VA determined he had service-connected PTSD. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder SM has a post-service diagnosis of PTSD from the VA with a 50% service connected rating. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 July 2018, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed that on multiple occasions between 6 March 2017 and 9 March 2017, he had sex with X., a married woman who was not his wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 June 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 January 2016 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 35F1P, 2B Intelligence Analyst / 4 years, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (18 June 2013 to 25 January 2016) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (21 June 2015 to 20 October 2015 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3; AAM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; MOVSM; NATO MDL; MUC g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: US Air Force Security Police Report of Investigation, dated 13 March 2017, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for adultery. FG Article 15 and its associated documents, dated 1 May 2017, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman, not his wife between 6 and 8 March 2017. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,157, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: MEDCOM Form 774 (Medical Record), undated, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 May 2017, reflects behavioral health issues. Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Rating Decision, dated 30 January 2018, and VA letter on VA benefits, dated 6 February 2018, indicate the applicant was evaluated 50 percent disabled due to service-connected PTSD. Health Records, dated 9, 18, 24 May 2017, reflect behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 26 February 2018; attorney-authored brief; applicant-authored personal statement; DD Form 214; 14 character reference statements; applicant's mother supporting statement; Air Assault Bade and ASI 2B Orders; MUC award memorandum; approved MUC recommendation; Parachute Duty and Parachute Badge Orders; Individual Jump Record; MOVSM certificate; Intelligence Analyst Course diploma; Air Assault Course diploma; three certificates of course completions; NATO Medal certificate; Airborne Course diploma; AGCM Permanent Orders; Associate and Bachelor of Science certificates; ERB; academic transcripts; / Service School Academic Evaluation Report; character reference statement; DA Form 4187 (promotion to E-4), dated 9 June 2015; three letters of congratulatory and appreciation; two AAM certificates; MUC Permanent Order; three ARCOM certificates; six Recommendations for Awards; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 May 2017 (pages 2 and 3 of 3 pages); Health Records, dated 9, 18 and 24 May 2017; VA letter, dated 6 February 2018; VA Rating Decision, dated 30 January 2018; three character reference statements with current employment; FG Article 15, dated 1 May 2017; and Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 25 August 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: earned Associate of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees; employed with Honda of America Manufacturing. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 and to change the narrative reason for his discharge with its corresponding codes. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in an NCO. He knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant contends he was dealing with PTSD issues at the time of his misconduct, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service- connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. They all recognize his good conduct during and after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14- 12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 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 July 2018, 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 AR20180006342 1