1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 August 2018 b. Date Received: 24 August 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 pertinent part and in effect, served in a hostile work environment within the unit. The discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident, in which the applicant appealed the Article 15 that was imposed. The Article 15 was suspended by the battalion commander, subjected to reviewing the actions after 90 days; however, that commander moved on to another assignment without reviewing the applicant's actions. The applicant was also advised the separation proceedings were also suspended pending the 90- day re-evaluation. However, within a week after returning from leave, the applicant was instructed to begin clearing. In addition, the applicant was not familiar with the entire clearing procedures, such as, receiving assistance with moving belongings to the home of record. Instead, the applicant packed what the applicant could fit in the vehicle and asked for assistance from family to have the vehicle shipped from JBLM, WA to Columbia, SC. (The applicant detailed the events surrounding the errors on the DD Form 214; however, DD Form 215 shows the stated errors were corrected.) The applicant is currently a full-time college student pursuing a career in medicine. The applicant has not been in any trouble. The applicant continues to thrive and mature within the community. 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 TBI, Concussion w/o LOC, Occupational Problem, Anger Management, and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected; 70% for Mood Disorder from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 January 2020, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 April 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 6 February 2017, the applicant wrongfully communicated to Ms. S.B., a threat to wit: "I will fucking kill you and the baby. You're both dead to me. You wait and see and when I get off work you're dead," or words to that effect. Additionally, on 26 October 2016, the applicant was disrespectful in language toward SSG A.T., a noncommissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a noncommissioned officer, who was then in execution of his office, by saying to him, "SSG T. is a hoe," or words to that effect. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (Note the suspended separation of the applicant on 25 April 2017, for 90 days, was vacated due to receipt of derogatory information on the applicant on 22 May 2017.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 September 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92L10, Petroleum Laboratory Specialist / 3 years, 9 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 5 January 2017, for being disrespectful in language towards and NCO on 26 October 2016. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended) and 14 days of extra duty. Memorandum for Record of Assessment Counseling, dated 17 February 2017, rendered by the applicant's first sergeant, lists several areas of events of adverse nature presented by the applicant. Negative counseling statements for speeding in excess of the legal limit (52 MPH in a 35 MPH zone) on post; involuntary separation being initiated; performance being less than stellar for month of January 2017; not being in the correct uniform for a unit "Belt Buckle" challenge; being verbally abusive on a cell phone conversation; behavior being very unprofessional and unbecoming of a junior leader; suspension of rank during an Article 15 appeal session; being barred from continued service due to not demonstrating potential for future service, lacking motivation, being undisciplined, lacking profession, and duty performance being unsatisfactory; being responsible for key points requiring corrections; initiating a FLAG for adverse action; disrespecting an NCO; being considered for bar to reenlistment; not being recommended for a promotion board for failing to complete assigned task; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; losing his military identification card; failing to maintain the standards of AR 670-1; failing to obey an order or regulation; and failing to follow instructions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 3 March 2017, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 March 2017, indicates an "AXIS I" diagnoses of an "Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; acute." Applicant's documentary evidence, email correspondence, dated 17 April 2017, indicates the applicant had been diagnosed with depression, insomnia, and headaches; an email, dated 9 January 2017, indicates the applicant "had been stressed out and struggling emotionally ... as [he] had even reached out to Behavioral Health for their assistance"; and an email, dated 12 January 2017, indicates that in addressing the applicant's mental state, he had seen Behavioral Health two or three times in the past, but missed a scheduled appointment on 14 December 2016. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 16 August 2018; email correspondence, dating in December 2016, January 2017, March 2017, April 2017, and September 2017; memorandum, dated 21 June 2017; rescinding and discharge Orders, dated 20 June 2017; and DD Forms 214 and 215. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that he is currently a full- time college student pursuing a career in medicine. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends the discharge was unjust because the incident that led to his discharge was a one-time offense, and after being advised his separation proceedings were suspended pending a 90-day re-evaluation, and within a week after returning from his leave, he was instructed to begin clearing. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Insofar as the applicant's contentions that the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career, although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Furthermore, the applicant correctly revealed that the errors found in the former Soldier's records, DD Form 214, at the time of the discharge were corrected by a DD Form 215, a copy which he furnished. Notwithstanding the corrected errors, it appears that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the corrected errors in this case. Department of Defense Directive 1332.28 stipulates that a discharge is proper unless the error was a prejudicial error. The applicant had a record of misconduct and substandard performance of duty with few significant favorable entries in the service record. The applicant contends that at the time of his discharge, he was not familiar with the entire clearing procedures, such as, receiving assistance with moving his belongings to his home of record, and instead, he requested for assistance from his family to have his vehicle shipped to his home of record. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Although the applicant indirectly presented behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record, and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. 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 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 22 January 2020, 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 AR20180012992 1