1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 July 2018 b. Date Received: 23 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was unjustly discharged from active duty for a situation that the applicant had absolutely no control over. The only thing the applicant was guilty of was being at the wrong place at the right time. Right time, because the applicant was able to call for help after a fatal accident had happened where a friend lost his life. The applicant was with four others, in a friend's room drinking a couple of beers, when a debate on whose car was faster came up. SPC X and PFC X decided to go out and race so all left together in their vehicles. When they arrived to the location where they decided to race their vehicles, the applicant exited the vehicle due to having no intention on racing. While they were racing, the applicant heard tires screeching, which the applicant figured were a normal occurrence in racing. After a few minutes, PFC X drove the vehicle back to where the applicant was and went up to the stop sign where SPC X and PV2 X were already were and asked if they had seen SPC X, to which they replied no. They decided to return from where they came to look for SPC X, when midway they saw SPC X had an accident. The applicant immediately went into a state of distraught after seeing the body in the wrecked car. Without any hesitation, the applicant called for help and the MP's came. The applicant states, it felt like there was an out of body experience after seeing something so tragic. The applicant was in a state of shock. When the MP's arrived on the scene to talk to them, the applicant was devastated and didn't recall what was said to the MPs. The applicant may have said "no" or "yes," but is unsure about them racing. When the applicant was interviewed by CID, the applicant was told what to put in the report. The applicant was told by the CID Agent to say that the MPs were told they were "not" racing. The applicant was afraid, tired, devastated and was willing to do whatever they asked because of being completely overwhelmed after seeing SPC X in the wrecked car. The applicant was in a state of shock and no one offered any type of grief counseling or assistance to help mentally. The applicant was willing to say whatever they wanted and thought they had the best interest at hand only to later learn that they did not. The applicant had nothing to do with the race or their decision to race their vehicles. After about 11 hours of off and on interrogation by CID, they were released. Again, no one showed up to help the applicant process or debrief what had just happened. The applicant was picked up by the NCOs and taken to this battery. The accident happened over the weekend and the applicant went to physical training the following Monday morning as usual. The unit was deployed and prior to the incident, was scheduled to deploy in February 2017. After the incident, the applicant was removed from orders to deploy and placed with the Rear Detachment. The incident occurred in January 2017 and the applicant had not heard anything until around or about July 2017. The applicant never received a counseling statement for the incident; but did receive one directly relating to the deployment, because of being under investigation. As a junior Soldier, the applicant did not know what to do, so the applicant did what the applicant thought was right, without any help from the chain of command. The applicant spoke with family members about the mental state of mind. The applicant did not realize there was an option to speak with the Chaplain concerning the incident to help deal with what had happened. Six months later, SFC E, the Rear Detachment 1SG, told the applicant about going to go see the Rear Detachment Brigade Commander and Command Sergeant Major about incident. The applicant was given an Article 15, wherein was reduced in rank; received extra duty and restriction; forfeited one month's pay; and, was dishonorably discharged from the Army. The applicant requested a copy of the statement to CID, but was told that the applicant could not have a copy for records. The applicant was not properly cleared from the military installation, was not afforded the opportunity to go to finance and was kicked off post. The applicant still has trouble processing loss of the friend and the injustice given by the chain of command. The applicant should have received no punishment from the incident, especially not being dishonorably discharged from the military. The applicant was a great Soldier, who earned rank with waivers. The applicant was a Squad Leader and the military performance was outstanding prior to this incident. The applicant comes from a legacy of military family members who honorably served and were senior leaders from all branches of service. Despite the mistreatment and injustice received during Advanced Initial Training from a female NCO, the applicant still performed and Soldiered like a Soldier with loyalty, dignity, integrity, respect, leadership and morals. The applicant graduated and proceeded on orders reporting on time and ready to perform as a Soldier at the permanent duty station. The applicant never received a negative counseling from anyone prior to this incident. The applicant was well on the way to becoming a Non-Commissioned Officer. An upgrade of discharge will allow the applicant to reenter the military service and complete a military career with honors. The applicant also requests full benefits, in order to properly receive mental care and the Montgomery GI Bill. 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 Alcohol Abuse. VA records indicate that they contain no content regarding the applicant. 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 27 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: Made false official statements in an effort to obstruct justice and impede an investigation (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 August 2017/ The applicant waived his right to consult with a JAG Officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The evidence of record reflects the applicant submitted an unconditional waiver. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 August 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The separation authority approved the unconditional waiver of the applicant's separation board. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 October 2014 / 3 years, 42 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13D10, Field Artillery Automation / 2 years, 10 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Field Grade Article 15, for violation of Article 107 and 134. The punishment imposed was reduction to PV1/E-1, forfeiture of $799.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Traffic Accident Report dated 7 January 2017. Mental Status Evaluation dated 14, July 2017, reflects the applicant did not have a BH condition that warrant disposition through medical channels IAW AR 40-501. He was psychiatrically cleared for chapter 14-12c administrative separation. There was no indication that the applicant's misconduct was related to a BH condition. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and 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 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 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 marred the quality of his service by receiving an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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's contentions about his discharge was a form of punishment for something he had nothing to do with, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Further, 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 requests a change to the characterization of his service in order to rejoin the Army. However, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 February 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 AR20180009894 1