1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 April 2018 b. Date Received: 30 April 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, had severe PTSD symptoms and other health issues. The applicant accomplished all the missions at hand. The unit separated the applicant instead of allowing the applicant to retire. The applicant has been unemployed since separation from service. The applicant submitted the following the applicant considers to be issues: Issue 1. 12 June 2003, fraudulently reenlisted in the United States Army. Issue 2. 28 April 2008, fraudulently reenlisted in the United States Army. Issue 3. Between 4 June 2001 and 22 February 2013, the applicant failed to register as a sex offender. Issue 4. 14 February 2007, the applicant were disrespectful in language and deportment toward SFC K., a superior noncommissioned officer. Issue 5. 25 May 2011, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order issued by LTC R. Issue 6. 25 May 2011, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general order. Issue 7. 26 May 2011, the applicant was found drunk on duty. Issue 8. 24 June 2014, the retirement package was never submitted or addressed during separation. A prior records review was conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 March 2019. 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 PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Psychophysiological Insomnia, and TBI. The applicant is 70% 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 20 November 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 April 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he fraudulently reenlisted in the United States Army x2 (12 June 2003 and 28 April 2008); he failed to register as a sex offender between (4 June 2001 and 22 February 2013); he was disrespectful in language and deportment toward SFC K., a superior noncommissioned officer (14 February 2007); he failed to obey a lawful order issued by LTC R. (25 May 2011); he failed to obey a lawful order (25 May 2011); and he was found drunk on duty (26 May 2011); In addition to the offenses listed above, the unit commander was also initiating separation for, he indecently assaulted T.V.R., (12 September 1999); and He was previously provided the pertinent documents supporting the offense when notified on 27 February 2013, including documentation revealing he was convicted of the offense at a court- martial which occurred on 18 August 2001 and 3-5 October 2001. (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 23 April 2013, the Commander 25 Infantry Division, referred the applicant case to an administrative separation board. On 30 May 2013, the board convened. Applicant appeared with counsel. In view of the findings, the Board recommended that the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army with an under other than honorable characterization of service. While separation was recommended as indicated above, pursuant to AR 635-200, paragraph 2-12, the board makes a non-binding recommendation to the separation authority that the discharge be suspended for* a period of up to three months per*AR 635-200, paragraphs 1 through 18. On 27 June 2013, the Commander 25 Infantry Division recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 April 2014 / The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), directed the applicant's separation with a characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 April 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 years / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 11B40, Infantryman / 24 years, 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 16 December 1987 to 20 January 1988 / NA IADT, 21 January 1988 to 28 April 1988 / UNC USAR, 29 April 1988 to 28 November 1989 / NA RA, 29 November 1989 to 21 April 1993 / HD RA, 22 April 1993 to 1 January 1997 / HD RA, 2 January 1997 to 5 January 2000 / HD RA, 6 January 2000 to 11 June 2003 / HD RA, 12 June 2003 to 27 April 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / Korea / SWA / Iraq x2, 14 October 2004 to 1 October 2005 and 9 November 2008 to 30 November 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-"V" DEV, ARCOM, AAM-6, AGCM-6, NDSM- BSS, NDSM, GWOTEM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2008 to 15 January 2012, Among The Best 16 January 2012 to 15 January 2013, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GO Article 15, dated 7 July 2011, for having knowledge of a lawful order issued by LTC P.D.R., Command Policy Memorandum #16 - Buddy Team Policy, by leaving the battalion footprint without notifying his supervisor of his whereabouts (25 May 2011); for violating a lawful general order, by wrongfully consuming alcohol (25 may 2011 ); and, for being found drunk on duty as a noncommissioned officer while serving in an area of active hostilities in Iraq (26 May 2011 ). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,171 pay for two months (suspended); extra duty for 45 days and a written reprimand. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 8 July 2011, for his conduct on 25 May 2011, near Camp Liberty, Iraq. According to an AR 15-6 investigation, he and another senior noncommissioned officer left the battalion area without informing anyone of his whereabouts. He became so intoxicated he failed to meet the one hour accountability requirements for Operations Company following an indirect fire attack on Victory Base Complex and he was unaccounted for until 0230 hours on 26 May 2011. Upon his return, the military police conducted a field sobriety test, which he failed. He later admitted to consuming four cups of alcohol in violation of United States Forces-Iraq General Order-1A dated 21 September 2010, and a subsequent breathalyzer revealed a BAC of .140 percent. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 November 2013; relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of psychophysiological Insomnia per record; rule out 309.81 PTSD. He had three combat deployments and score 78 on PCL-M today >50 is rule out PTSD. He has a long history of treatment for his combat stress with his Chaplain and he would benefit from further assessment to rule out PTSD. He would benefit greatly from PRRP program and SW provided him with relevant treatment information. The applicant had a documented history of TBI. His neurologist listed him as unfit for duty from TBI perspective in his 6 November 2013 note: "At this time, the patient continues not to meet retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, 3-30g." He may be a more appropriate candidate for evaluation for medical board. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214; letter, State of Hawaii, Department of the Attorney General; applicant's letter to the Board (two pages); and two support statements. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, he had severe PTSD symptoms and other health issues. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant's further contends, he accomplished all the missions at hand. 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 also contends, his unit separated him instead of allowing him to retire. 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 applicant further contends, he has been unemployed since his separation from service. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant submitted the following he considered to be issues: Issue 1. 12 June 2003, fraudulently reenlisted in the United States Army. Issue 2. 28 April 2008, fraudulently reenlisted in the United States Army. Issue 3. Between 4 June 2001 and 22 February 2013, you failed to register as a sex offender. Issue 4. 14 February 2007, you were disrespectful in language and deportment toward SFC K., a superior noncommissioned officer. Issue 5. 25 May 2011, you failed to obey a lawful order issued by LTC R. Issue 6. 25 May 2011, you failed to obey a lawful general order. Issue 7. 26 May 2011, you were found drunk on duty. Issue 8. 24 June 2014, retirement package was never submitted or addressed during separation. Of note, in a memorandum, dated 31 May 2012, the Commander 25 Infantry Division, relates the applicant requested voluntary retirement with separation not later than 1 October 2012. He (Commander, 25th Infantry Division), requested to suspend his approved retirement pending conclusion of separation proceedings. The above issues except issue 8 were not considered as issues of propriety or equity and were not addressed in the Case Report and Directive. Issues 1-7, the applicant alleges are issues, in fact are the reasons for his discharge under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, some of the persons providing the character reference statements were in and some were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 20 November 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 AR20180009325 4