1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 June 2018 b. Date Received: 20 June 2018 b. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was entrapped by a system that was able to receive a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The applicant was in an 18-year-old and over [chat room], which required an identification check. The police officer stated the applicant was just in a Yahoo chat site, but never stated which one the applicant was in to the grand jury. The Virginia Bedford County Police Department, never did any forensics on the applicant's laptop or cell phone, which if they had, they would have seen that the applicant was in an 18 and up Yahoo chat site. Counsel states, the applicant should get rank as a specialist restored as the applicant did not talk to a 14 year old girl at all, but rather a Police Officer posing as a 14 year old child with the handle MAGGIEGIRL1177. If the base IG and CID had done their jobs, they could have reviewed the Yahoo page and found that the police officer was in an 18-year-old and over chat room where one had to prove their identification. They could have seen that the applicant had not talked to the police officer for two months. Counsel states, Bedford County is known for enticing young men to talk to the police; and, had the applicant's command checked the computer, they would have seen that the applicant had not been in any general chat rooms, but only adult chat rooms. The applicant had served in Iraq, Korea and Haiti and twice in Afghanistan; and, had re-enlisted twice. The applicant has flash backs of men in the unit being killed and needs to be treated for PTSD. Counsel, requests that the applicant be given honor back so that the applicant may receive the medical help that one needs. Counsel, states, the applicant's colonel stated that the colonel would not help applicant and counsel believes that the colonel had part of applicant's record destroyed. Had the command not destroyed the Fort Campbell section of the applicant's record, it would have proven the applicant had PTSD. 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 Acute Reaction to Stress, Other Specified Trauma and Stress Related Disorder, FAP involvement, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Depressive Disorder NOS. The applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 January 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2013 (sic) (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On diverse occasions between on or about 29 May 2012 to on or about 27 June 2012, he solicited a minor, female under 16 years old, for sex and used indecent language towards her. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 27 March 2013, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 March 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 April 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 12 years, 3 months, 3 days c. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 August 2000 - 2 January 2004 / HD RA, 3 January 2004 - 25 April 2008 / HD d. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Haiti, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (10 February 2011 - 6 August 2011); Iraq (20 September 2005 - 28 August 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFSM, HSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Bedford County Sheriff's Office, Supplement or Follow-up Report, dated 24 September 2012, reflects the applicant was arrested on 20 September 2012, as the subject in an investigation and was charged with three counts of using a communication system to facilitate crimes against a child. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA)," effective 20 September 2012; From "CCA" to "PDY," effective 22 October 2012; and, From "PDY" to "CCA," effective 19 November 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 208 days CCA, 20 September 2012 - 21 October 2012 / Released from CCA CCA, 19 November 2012 - 15 May 2013 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 November 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety / depression. The applicant provided an extract of his active duty medical treatment records, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety Disorder NOS; Depression; and, Primary Insomnia with sleep apnea. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 4; DA Form 1059; DA Form 3286; DD Form 293; medical treatment records; award certificate. 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, 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. 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. Counsel contends the applicant's colonel stated that he would not help applicant and counsel believes that the colonel had part of applicant's record destroyed. 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. Counsel states, the Bedford County is known for enticing young men to talk to the police. However, the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention or that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service anxiety and depression; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 26 October 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits, does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 29 January 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 / 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 AR20180009317 1