1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 April 2018 b. Date Received: 29 May 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge should be upgraded based on the grounds that that the unit commander recommended an honorable discharge. The physician recommended an honorable discharge based a diagnosis of a personality disorder and PTSD. The applicant was entitled to a Chapter 5-13 discharge which requires an honorable discharge. The applicant was denied proper treatment after discharge from Madigan Army Hospital. The applicant was punished by the unit for seeking help. The applicant's medical records show continued attempts to become a better Soldier following an unprovoked attack by Soldiers in the unit. The applicant alleges despite the military police investigator destroying evidence, lying under oath and attempting to have the applicant prosecuted under false pretenses, the applicant wanted to remain in the Army. The applicant has to fight to get basic services and benefits. The applicant received no medical assistance and no attempt was made to ensure receipt of proper treatment which led to subsequent self-medication. The applicant was targeted and whether it was racial bias or personal vendetta, the applicant did not receive fair and equitable treatment as a victim of an attack. 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 DO, Alcohol Abuse and Personality Disorder NOS. The applicant is 100% service-connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with mTBI, PTSD, Anxiety DO, and Major Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant had 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 19 June 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBH, PTSD, and TBI). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 June 2006 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 April 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he was ticketed for speeding, he drove his car with expired tags, he failed to follow lawful orders from his NCOs on several occasions, he did not shave before formation, he did not have his TA-50 ready for inspection, he was at the PX in PT uniform, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty on several occasions, and he had his music too loud on two occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander recommended an Honorable discharge. The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2003 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 2 May 2005, for violating a general regulation, by emitting a sound from an audio system that can be heard from a distance greater than 50 feet; extra duty for 5 days. A charge sheet dated, 8 November 2005, relates the applicant was charged with several violations of UCMJ Articles. Summary Court-Martial, dated 27 January 2006, the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses: failure to report to V Troop's motor pool (20 June 2005); fail to obey general order by emitting a sound that can be heard from a greater distance then 50 feet (20 June 2005). He was sentenced to be reduced to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture $500 pay, and confinement for 15 days. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various act of misconduct; monthly performance counseling and regarding a request for part time civilian job. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Confinement Military Authorities for 12 days, 27 January 2006 to 9 February 2006. However, this period is not annotated on the applicant's DD Form 214 block 29, dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 March 2006, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, not otherwise specified and alcohol abuse; and Axis II, personality disorder not otherwise specified. He did not have a severe mental disorder and was not considered mentally disordered. However, he manifests a long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability that was of such seventy so as to preclude adequate military service. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. Report of Medical Examination, dated 21 March 2006, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); separation education counseling checklist; and a DD Form 214. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 general, under honorable conditions 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 of unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating either the command's action was erroneous or the applicant's service mitigated the duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge should be upgraded based on the grounds that that his unit commander recommended an honorable discharge. AR 635-200, paragraph 2-2b(c) provides that the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any type of discharge and characterization of service authorized by applicable provisions of this regulation. The applicant further contends, his physician recommended an honorable discharge based on his diagnosis of a personality disorder and PTSD. Per regulatory guidance, physicians do not make recommendation on any type of discharge and characterization of service unless they are serving in the capacity of one of the commanders in the discharge process. A Report of Medical Examination, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder. However, the service record contains no evidence of a 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 contends, he was entitled to a Chapter 5-13 discharge which requires an honorable discharge. The mental status evaluation shows that the applicant met psychiatric criteria for expeditious separation in accordance with Chapter 5-13. The applicant also contends, he was denied proper treatment after his discharge from the Madigan Army Hospital. Former Soldiers do not receive medical treatment at Army facilities after they are separated from the Service. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was punished by his unit for seeking help. 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. Moreover, the applicant contends, his medical records show continued attempts to become a better Soldier following his unprovoked attack by Soldiers in his unit. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant alleges despite the military police investigator destroying evidence, lying under oath and attempting to have him prosecuted under false pretenses, he wanted to remain in the Army. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that the military police investigator acted inappropriately during the execution of his duties. The applicant further contends, he has to fight to get basic services and benefits. 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 also contends, he received no medical assistance and no attempt was made to ensure he received proper treatment which led to subsequent self-medication. If the applicant believed he had not received adequate mental health or medical assistance, he could have presented himself to a medical treatment or mental health facility while on active duty for further assistance. Additionally, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was targeted and whether it was racial bias or personal vendetta, he did not receive fair and equitable treatment as a victim of an attack. Although the applicant alleges that he was a victim of racial bias, personal vendetta and did not receive fair and equitable treatment during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 19 June 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBH, PTSD, and TBI). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20180010238 1