1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 March 2018 b. Date Received: 22 March 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through legal counsel, requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a change of narrative reason for discharge to the appropriated three letter code, and a change of reentry eligibility (RE) code to a 1. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the acts of misconduct were the results of an undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant contends that at the time of discharge, the separation was procedurally defective; the separation action to include the administrative discharge was unfair; and the characterization of service is inequitable now and should be changed to medical retirement. The applicant contends that while deployed, the applicant faced serious traumatic events; experienced PFC Barnett and watched the Soldier strangle oneself to death due to a wife being on the team MIA and having to deploy during this time of deployment. The applicant talked to PFC Barnett the evening prior to the Soldier committing suicide and woke up the next day to find the strangulated and dead body. During deployment, the applicant experienced getting mortar rounds as well as rockets attacks coming in. After return from Iraq, the applicant experienced anxiety and was beginning to be affected by the post-traumatic stress from Iraq. The applicant was undiagnosed but was struggling with the return. The applicant contends that the stabbing of a female Soldier 74 times by a Sergeant that the applicant personally knew interacted with the PTSD and made the applicant start drinking more and more. On the night there was an assault on the wife, rather than being looked at for PTSD, the Article 15 as it turned out should have been a simple assault. The applicant contends that the behavior was consistent with PTSD. The applicant believes the issues related to the non-judicial punishment should have raised red-flags for the command and leadership and the applicant should have been sent to EBH and been diagnosed with PTSD. The fact that the applicant wasn't is strange and inconsistent in this time where so many Iraq veterans are experiencing PTSD. The applicant contends that the VA has found that the PTSD is related to "a stressful event experienced in while in Iraq." The applicant believes the substantive error is there is sufficient proof that the applicant should have been medically discharged due to combat related PTSD. The applicant currently has a VA rating for PTSD disability. The VA has found that the PTSD has anger side effects and the applicant continues to work on anger and PTSD issues. Therefore the applicant requests that the discharge be upgraded and that the applicant be medically retired and allowed appropriate separation pay. 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 anxiety/with mixed emotional features, Alcohol Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, and Marital Problem. The applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. 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 9 October 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for possessing an unregistered firearm in his on-post residence and assaulting his spouse on 26 February 2012 Violating the limits of his restriction on 27 February 2012; Violating a no-contact order on 3 June 2012; Disrespecting a noncommissioned officer by raising his voice and not standing at parade rest on 4 June 2012 Making a false official statement on 6 June 2012; and Violating the limits of his restriction on 18 August 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 November 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 3 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 October 2008 to 3 November 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 November 2009 to 14 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 3 June 2012, shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for domestic disturbance (verbal) (on post). FG Article 15, dated 2 August 2012, for being disrespectful in language towards a senior noncommissioned officer on 4 June 2012 and making a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer on 6 June 2012. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $745 pay (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record of Supplementary Action Under article 15, UCMJ, dated 30 August 2012, show that the punishment imposed on 2 August 2012 of forfeiture of $745 pay was vacated as a result of the applicant disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 18 August 2012. It should also be noted that the applicant's file contains a second Article 15 which is unreadable. 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: Chronological Records of Medical Care submitted by the applicant show he had problems with adjustment disorder with anxiety and a fracture of his ankle right distal fibula. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; medical records; legal memo; personal affidavit; award; military records; letters of recommendation; and DD Form 214. The letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs submitted by the applicant shows the applicant has been awarded 80 percent service connected disability. 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. 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, 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a change of his narrative reason for discharge to the appropriated three letter code, and a change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code to a 1. The applicant's available 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 evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The appropriate RE code is 3. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his acts of misconduct were the results of his undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant contends that at the time of discharge his separation was procedurally defective; the separation action to include the administrative discharge was unfair; and the characterization of service is inequitable now and should be changed to medical retirement. The applicant contends that while deployed he faced serious traumatic events; he experienced PFC Barnett and watched him strangle himself to death due to his wife being on the team MIA and having to deploy during his time on his deployment. He talked to PFC Barnett the evening prior to him committing suicide and woke up the next day to find his strangulated and dead body. During deployment he experienced getting mortar rounds as well as rockets attacks coming in. After return from Iraq, he experience anxiety and was beginning to be affected by the post-traumatic stress from Iraq. He was undiagnosed but was struggling with his return. He contends that the stabbing of a female Soldier 74 times by a Sergeant that he personally knew interacted with his PTSD and made him start drinking more and more. On the night there was an assault on his wife, rather than being looked at for PTSD, the Article 15 as it turned out should have been a simple assault. The applicant contends that his behavior was consistent with PTSD. He believes the issues related to the non-judicial punishment should have raised red-flags for the command and leadership and the applicant should have been sent to EBH and been diagnosed with PTSD. The fact that he wasn't is strange and inconsistent in this time where so many Iraq veterans are experiencing PTSD. The applicant contends that the VA has found that his PTSD is related to "a stressful event experienced in while in Iraq." The applicant believes the substantive error is there is sufficient proof that he should have been medically discharged due to his combat related PTSD. The applicant currently has a VA rating for PTSD disability. The VA has found that the PTSD has anger side effects and he continues to work on his anger and PTSD issues. Therefore the applicant requests that his discharge be upgrade and that he be medically retired and allowed appropriate separation pay. The independent medical documents from the Clinical Psychologist submitted by the applicant indicating that he had undiagnosed, relatively untreated mental health condition that contribute to his misconduct and that he has done exceptionally well in his recovery from PTSD now that he has had the opportunity to participate in an extended course of formal, trauma-focused psychotherapy; and that he has been awarded 80 percent service connected disability. However, 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 medical evidence in the 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 Also it should be noted, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 9 October 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 AR20180006419 4