1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 May 2018 b. Date Received: 9 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to receive GI Bill benefits. The applicant contends it has been some time since leaving the military and that it has taken a long time to adjust to civilian life. During the time in the military, the applicant began to suffer from PTSD and severe mood disorder. This culminated in a day that changed life forever. The applicant lost control and in a fit of uncontrolled rage, lost oneself and was going to do serious damage to an NCO who the applicant felt had been harassing the applicant for weeks. The applicant had no control over the actions in that moment; it was if the applicant was seeing oneself through someone else's eyes. The applicant never did anything though. The applicant got into the car and fought back to gain control. When the applicant came back, a personal weapon was in the car. The applicant immediately called the Sergeant and told him what was going on. The applicant was scared and may hurt someone or oneself, and that there was a weapon that someone had to come get. The applicant contends that making threats towards a fellow Soldiers life was highly inappropriate and should have been severely penalized, and is not taking that lightly. However, the applicant does have a problem. The applicant suffered from severe PTSD, Mood Disorders, and Hyper Active Attention Deficit Disorder among other things. The most dangerous and traumatic of these were caused by military service. The NCO's at the time knew the applicant was on edge. The applicant has been put on watch several times and commanded not to leave post when the applicant was with a prior unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The applicant was ordered by the company commander and put under the watch of a NCO and Warrant Officer. The applicant was never sent anywhere and was told that to suck it up and drive on. Unfortunately the applicant couldn't control oneself and lost control for a moment upon arriving at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. The applicant never left the house though, never drove anywhere, called for help, and was sent to get that help. The applicant never actually hurt a soul and reached out. The applicant is now looking to not have that moment of weakness tarnish the legacy of life and stop the applicant from trying to achieve goals and dreams. 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, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Chronic PTSD, Depression, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Post-service, the applicant has a 100% service-connected rating for PTSD. In summary, the applicant had 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 25 March 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), and the separation code to JKA. (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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 May 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 May 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being counseling for insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer, failing to obey an order or regulation, and communicating a threat on 28 November 2006; Being ordered to pay $110.00 fine by the United States Magistrate's Court at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for operating a vehicle while having a suspended driver's license on 10 January 2007; and Receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for violating Fort Leavenworth Command Policy Number 11-03, paragraph 4a (1), dated 7 March 2005, by not registering a personally owned weapon with the Provost Marshall Officer on 26 January 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 May 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 May 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 May 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 September 2003 to 4 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 January 2005 to 10 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 19 October 2006, showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving on suspended driver's license. FG Article 15, dated 26 January 2007, for violating Fort Leavenworth Command Policy Number 11-03, paragraph 4a (1), dated 7 March 2005, by not registering a personally owned weapon with the Provost Marshall Officer. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $846 pay per month for two months (both suspended) and extra duty for 30 days. Counseling statement for acts of performance and misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Memorandum, dated 23 January 2007, from D.C., LCSW, Psychology/Psychiatry Services, shows that the evaluation by clinical interview revealed the applicant had the mental capacity to participate and understand the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; met the medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and Axis II 301.9 Personality Disorder not otherwise specified. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; letters of support; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends he is now a brokerage associate for a bank through hard work and determination. He earned his series 6, 63 and life insurance licenses, and he works hard every day to help people with their own financial problems, especially fellow vets. He works two sometimes three jobs and the financial stress is too great to get loans for college since in a few years he will have to pay for his kid's college tuition. 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 general (under 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 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. The applicant seeks relief contending that making threats towards a fellow Soldiers life was highly inappropriate and should have been severely penalized, and he his not taking that lightly. However, he does have a problem, he suffered from severe PTSD, Mood Disorders, Hyper Active Attention Deficit Disorder among other things. The most dangerous and traumatic of these were caused by his military service. His NCO's at the time knew he was on edge. He has been put on watch several times and commanded not to leave post when he was with his prior unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Ordered by his company commander, and put under the watch of a NCO and Warrant Officer. He was never sent anywhere, and told that he had to suck it up and drive on. Control himself, unfortunately he couldn't do that and lost control for a moment when he go to Fort Leavenworth Kansas. He never left his house though, never drove anywhere, he called for help, and was sent to get that help. He never actually hurt a soul and reached out when he broke. He is now looking to not have that moment of weakness tarnish the legacy of his life and stop him from trying to achieve his goals and dreams. The applicant contentions were noted; evidence in the record shows (i.e., Memorandum, dated 23 January 2007, from D.C., LCSW, Psychology/Psychiatry Services, shows that the evaluation by clinical interview revealed the applicant had the mental capacity to participate and understand the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; met the medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and Axis II 301.9 Personality Disorder not otherwise specified). It was noted that although the patient (applicant) was not actively suicidal or homicidal, it was recommended that he not have access to classified information nor weapons. Process for expeditious administrative separation in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13 was recommended. The applicant did not have a severe mental disorder and was not considered mentally disordered. However, he manifested a long standing disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability that was of such severity so as to preclude adequate military service. This pattern of behavior was enduring, pervasive and inflexible. The possibility of any successful rehabilitation that would have allow this applicant to participate and contribute to his unit was negligible and should not delay his departure. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct as noted by evidence in the applicant's record. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive his GI Bill benefits. 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 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 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 25 March 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), and the separation code to JKA. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKA / 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 AR20180010088 1