1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 June 2018 b. Date Received: 26 June 2018 c. Previous Records Review: 18 March 2016, AR20150012842 d. Representative: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to upgrade a general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was improper, inequitable, and not according to AR 135-178. The applicant received a P3 Profile; however, stopping the MEB and denied the applicant of rights and the ability to be protected throughout discharge proceedings. While serving honorably, the applicant developed a disability resulting from combat experience. As early as 2007, the applicant was not aware of suffering from the PTSD that was formally diagnosed on 9 September 2009, three months after the fourth deployment. Despite, the applicant was deployed again in 2010. The PTSD progressively grew worst and the applicant did not realize the extent of the PTSD until it was too late. The applicant completed the fifth deployment the end of 2011. During "R&R," the applicant attempted suicide. (The applicant detailed the combat tour experience throughout the deployment.) The incident that led to discharge occurred three months and 10 days after returning in 2011, an incident that could have been avoided had the applicant received adequate care for PTSD before, during, and after the deployments, once diagnosed in 2009. The characterization of service upon discharge is in error and not according to AR 135-178. Instead of any punishment, the applicant should have received the medical attention needed. The permanent profile should have led to a medical discharge. However, the applicant was too incompetent to process what had occurred. The discharge was unjust because of a service- connected disability-this disability and it symptoms established a nexus between a behavioral health condition and the specific offense involving the children. The applicant has since completed the parenting education group meetings. 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 with Anxious Mood, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Marital Problems, and Other Specified Family Circumstances. The medical record does not contain a MEB referral or initial IDES contact. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and Depression NOS and has a 100% service-connected rating for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Warner Robbins, GA on 28 February 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF, but according to Special Court-Martial Order Number 8, dated 24 January 2013: Charge I: Two specifications of violating Article 128, UCMJ: Specification 1: unlawfully striking X, a child under the age of 16, on the arms and legs with a computer cord on 2 April 2012. Specification 2: unlawfully striking X., a child under the age of 16, on the arms and legs with a computer cord on 2 April 2012. (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, after the applicant was arraigned and the court-martial proceedings were terminated on 26 November 2012, and that the applicant's request was approved on 24 January 2013, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (4) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 February 2007 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y30, Unit Supply Specialist / 12 years, 6 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (16 August 2000 to 13 February 2007) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Kosovo (28 October 2002 to 25 July 2003), Iraq (2 February 2004 to 28 January 2005), (2 November 2005 to 1 November 2006), Afghanistan (14 June 2008 to 28 June 2009), (28 December 2010 to 21 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4; AAM-2; AGCM-4; NDSM-BSS; NDSM; ACM- 3CS; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; OSR-3; MUC; NATO MDL-2; CAB g. Performance Ratings: 7 NCOERS, with Fully Capable (FC) or Among the Best (AB) ratings: 1 September 2006 thru 25 April 2007, FC 26 April 2007 thru 25 April 2008, FC 26 April 2008 thru 25 April 2009, FC 26 April 2009 thru 25 September 2009, FC 26 September 2009 thru 25 September 2010, (FC) 26 September 2010 thru 25 September 2011, (FC) 25 September 2011 thru 24 September 2012, (AB) h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order Number 08, dated 24 January 2013, described at the preceding paragraphs 3c(1) and (3). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: Medical records: dated 15 July 2009, presents a history of present illness as being with PTSD with frustration, anger, irritability, emotional numbness, memory, loss of trust, sleep disturbances, flashback, crowds, nightmares; and dated 8-10, 16-17, 24 September 2009, 12 April 2012, 1 August 2012, 22 October 2012, 24 January 2013, 12 February 2013, show diagnoses of PTSD and Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood; and Nightmare Disorder. VA letter, dated 9 January 2017, indicates the applicant received an evaluation of 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 19 June 2018, with representative-authored statement and listed attachments. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's documentary evidence indicates he attended truck driving school. He is employed as a cross-country truck driver and attends college studying business management. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Although the record is void of the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial according to AR 635-200, Chapter 10, there is a Special Court-Martial Order that indicates the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved, and the court-martial proceedings were terminated accordingly. In the request, the applicant would have in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the request, the applicant would have admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits, although his request was approved with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Barring evidence to the contrary, all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The general (under honorable) conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance; in that, his record documented acts of significant achievement or valor, and that it did support the issuance of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because his discharge was improper, inequitable, and not according to AR 135-178. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant was discharged according to AR 635-200, and not AR 135-178. Insofar as the applicant's contentions that his behavioral health issues resulting from his deployments were the contributing factor to the incident that led to his discharge, his contentions 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, 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 applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority according to his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 10, is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is KFS. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Warner Robbins, GA on 28 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20180009531 5