1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 June 2018 b. Date Received: 25 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant 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 dedicated eight and half years of life to the Army and believes PTSD and mental health affected the behavior. The applicant was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation after the last episode. The applicant needs medical coverage and has two children to provide medical care for. 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 anxiety and depressed mood, Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Major Depression. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant is 70% service-connected for medical diagnoses through the VA. In summary, the applicant did not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 June 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 14 May 2018, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 30 April until on or about 12 May 2018; Charge II: violation of Article 90, UCMJ, the applicant having received a lawful command from MAJ B, his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, to remain on Fort Bliss, or words to that affect, did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, on or about 11 May 2018, willfully disobey the same; and, Charge III: violation of Article 92, UCMJ, the applicant did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, on or about 11 May 2018, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 5-1 and 5-2, Fort Bliss Regulation 27-5, elated 28 October 2016, by wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 17 May 2018 (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. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 6 June 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 December 2014 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 37 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D20, Calvary Scout / 9 years, 4 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 February 2009 - 30 December 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (16 December 2009 - 10 December 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-5, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPD, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 17 May 2014 - 18 March 2015 / Fully Capable 1 September 2016 - 1 September 2017 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. CG Article 15, dated 24 February 2015, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (on 1 and 29 December 2014); and, for wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (29 December 2014). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $602 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 29 June 2015, for making a false official statement (26 May 2015); and for unlawfully striking SSG S on the face with his hand (24 May 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 27 April 2018, reflects the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I: Violation of Article 92 UCMJ: In that the applicant did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, on or about 30 May 2017, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 10-2, Army Regulation 600-85, dated 28 November 2016, by wrongfully attempting to substitute another substance for his urine during a urinalysis. Charge II: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ: In that the applicant did, on or about 20 September 2017, without authority, absent himself from his organization, 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment (Rear)(Provisional), 2d Brigade Combat Team (Rear)(Provisional), 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas 79918, located at Fort Bliss, Texas, and did remain so absent until on or about 08 November 2017. Charge Ill: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ: In that the applicant did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, between on or about 24 May 2017 and 31 May 2017, wrongfully use amphetamine (DAMP). The sentenced adjudged: Forfeiture 2/3 pay for one month (suspended); reduction to E-4; restriction for 60 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 30 April 2018; and, From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 1 May 2018. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 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. 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 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, 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 this request, the applicant 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. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include VA loans, 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 applicant contends his PTSD and mental health affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 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 contends he was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. 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 13 June 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 AR20180009696 1