1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 June 2018 b. Date Received: 2 July 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant through legal counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Plenary Authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because his total capabilities were diminished at the time of his discharge, specifically, his misconduct was the direct result of his now-diagnosed service-connected PTSD, which diminished his capability to serve; the quality of his service, because during his time serving in active combat in Iraq, he went above and beyond his required duties and earned multiple commendations for his service; and because processing his discharge without a thorough mental health evaluation, despite reported symptoms of PTSD and a recognized change in behavior, was an arbitrary and capricious action the contributed to the characterization of his service. The applicant also contends that his discharge was improper because the separating officer did not consider his mental condition in characterizing his service. 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 no information regarding the applicant due to it not being in use during applicant's period of service. Other BH diagnoses made by the VA include Other Depressive Disorders; Alcohol Dependence, in remission; Nicotine Dependence, in remission. The applicant is 70% service connected for combat-related PTSD. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that mitigates only part of the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 December 2020, and by a 4-1 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12a / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 April 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to report on many occasions; fleeing the scene of an accident once; going beyond his pass limits without lawful authority once; being derelict in the performance of his duties many times; and committing larceny once. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 April 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 May 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 June 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 52D10, Power Generator Equipment Repairer / 1 year, 11 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 August 2003 to 14 September 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 14 April 2005, for stealing a Sony Play Station 2, of a value of about $149.00, the property of AAFES on 9 April 2005. The punishment consisted of reduction to E1, forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 April 2005, which indicated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. It was noted that there was no clinical indication that the applicant was imminently dangerous to himself or others. There was no evidence of a formal thought disorder, significate mood or anxiety disorder. The applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in any administrative process deemed appropriated by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; and exhibits 1-34. The Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 21 October 2015, submitted by the applicant indicates the applicant is receiving 70 percent service-connected disability for post- traumatic stress disorder. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. Army Regulation 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Plenary Authority. 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 evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The appropriate RE code is 3. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was inequitable because his total capabilities were diminished at the time of his discharge, specifically, his misconduct was the direct result of his now-diagnosed service-connected PTSD, which diminished his capability to serve; the quality of his service, because during his time serving in active combat in Iraq, he went above and beyond his required duties and earned multiple commendations for his service; and because processing his discharge without a thorough mental health evaluation, despite reported symptoms of PTSD and a recognized change in behavior, was an arbitrary and capricious action the contributed to the characterization of his service. The applicant also contends that his discharge was improper because the separating officer did not consider his mental condition in characterizing his service. The applicant's contentions were noted, his service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time of discharge. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant's service record indicates he committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. It should also be noted, that the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 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 2 December 2020, and by a 4-1 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 / 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 AR20180010982 1