1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 September 2018 b. Date Received: 3 October 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, in 2011, encountered a medical condition at the first duty station in Korea. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and emotions and conduct disturbance. Despite being prescribed four "different medications (Zoloft, Celexa, Buspar & Paxil)," the condition did not improve. Upon returning stateside, the applicant became suicidal. The applicant wanted to get away from it all since the applicant was not receiving help from the ex-wife, family, or unit. The applicant reached out to the first sergeant for help multiple times with no success. When the first sergeant decided to "help," it was a violent confrontation with the platoon sergeant, unit commander, and squad leader. This "ambush" triggered the condition causing the applicant to break down. The applicant attempted to commit suicide but the commander called the local police to the applicant's apartment and had the applicant escorted to Madigan Army Hospital, where the applicant was admitted for seven days in their psychiatric ward. Upon being released, the applicant was stripped of the keys to the car and apartment. The applicant was then ordered to sleep at the CQ desk in the barracks until further notice which led to a second suicide attempt by overdosing on medication. The applicant was a great Soldier always following orders, looking out for brothers, and never received any action under the UCMJ. This mental condition was the sole purpose for separation. 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 with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depression, Narcolepsy, Panic Disorder w/o Agoraphobia, Personality Disorder and Occupational Problem. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating 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 7 August 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant violated an order from CPT M.C.C., to not operate a motor vehicle, which is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In doing so, the applicant recklessly endangered SSG L.S.W., in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 2010 / 4 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14G10, Air Defense Battle Management System Operator / 2 years, 7 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA 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: MP Report, dated 6 July 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for reckless operation of a vehicle. Negative counseling statements for pending criminal investigation; being a diagnostic APFT failure; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; failing to obey direct order on numerous occasions; being disrespectful towards an NCO; failing to maintain standards by having a faddish haircut upon returning from leave; and lacking motivation during remedial physical readiness training. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 August 2012, indicates the applicant was cleared by behavioral health for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 13 August 2012, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues and treatment. Applicant's documentary evidence: Health Record, dated 16 February 2012, lists, in pertinent part, personality disorder, adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct, and anxiety disorder NOS as health problems and reported symptoms. Summarized report of being hospitalized on 31 July 2012, for suicidal ideation, and assessment of "Axis I" diagnosis of "MDD, Adjustment disorder," and Narrative Discharge Summary, dated 6 August 2012. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 30 September 2018; DD Form 214; Health Records, dated 16 February 2012, and 31 July 2012; Reports of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 August 2012, and 9 August 2012; and Report of Medical History, dated 13 August 2012. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 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 he received no help from his chain of command and when he reached out to his first sergeant for help, the leadership in his chain of command violently confronted him, which triggered his condition causing him to break down and he was hospitalized for suicidal ideation. 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. The applicant's contentions regarding suffering from behavioral health issues that led to his separation, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, 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. 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 7 August 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 AR20180014665 1