1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 January 2019 b. Date Received: 23 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, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 13 years of service. The applicant was a combat engineer and dedicated life to serve the country from the age of 19 until the age of 34, until being chaptered out of the Army. The applicant does not make excuses for these actions, but will provide an explanation. The applicant briefly served the country during a time of peace, but mainly during a time of war. The applicant has deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan for a total of four tours. The applicant served as a young Soldier and a Non-commissioned Officer and has led Soldiers into battle and safely brought them home. The applicant was awarded a combat action badge for active engagement and being engaged by the enemy during war. During the second deployment, the applicant lost a best friend during an attack on their convoy. Soon after, the applicant decided not to reenlist, after experiencing that tragic loss. The applicant had problems adapting to life outside the Army and wartime, so the applicant rejoined the Army. With everything the applicant had been through and seen, the applicant still trained, counseled, and led Soldiers with honor and pride. After the last deployment to Afghanistan in 2012, the applicant received orders to a training unit in Fort Leonard Wood. Prior to that point in the career, the applicant had either been headed to war or preparing to go to war. As a Staff Sergeant, the applicant was a team leader and responsible for the lives of ten Soldiers, which took priority over individual mental health issues that the applicant had been silently struggling with. The applicant believes that this is what assisting with coping with what the applicant now knows is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Survivors remorse, and Depersonalization. The combination of mental health and the mother becoming ill, the applicant began to lose it. The applicant tried to reach out for help from leadership, but was basically told to suck it up and drive on because training new Soldiers was a priority. The applicant held on as long as possible, and when all else failed, went AWOL. The applicant sought out help, reunited with the mother and then returned to duty. Upon returning, the applicant tried to explain these actions and seek continued help and support. Instead, was disrespected, degraded, called a coward and was treated as a Soldier who turned away from the country while in a time for war. The applicant was not treated as a Soldier who was suffering from the aftermath of four combat tours overseas. Over a roughly thirteen year career, this was the first time the applicant had ever been in trouble. Since discharge, the applicant has started a new life. The applicant is married to a wonderful and patient woman who gives continued love and support. She is also a combat veteran and can understand and help the applicant deal with service connected issues. The applicant has used the skills developed in the military to start a business, which had always been a dream. When not spending time with the family or running the business, the applicant trains a youth football team. The applicant coaches kids ranging in age from 10 to 13 and teaches them not only football skills, but life skills, which gives the applicant a sense of accomplishment when a parent or player thanks the applicant for being their Coach and/or father figure or male role model. The applicant has spoken at Suicide Prevention Ceremonies, helped Soldiers with their transition to civilian life, and given guidance to other veterans about not being ashamed to seek help for mental health issues. Through the separation was not ideal, it built the foundation for the new life that the applicant currently has and loves. 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 Anxiety. VA records indicate diagnoses of Other Specific Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder and is 70% service-connected for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant had BH diagnoses, they were not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 February 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had demonstrated to the chain of command on multiple occasions that he no longer possess the motivation and self-discipline to continue to serve in the U.S. Army. His lack of the Army Values, specifically Selfless Service, and Personal Courage by going AWOL from Fort Leonard Wood, MO on or about 3 February 2014 to on or about 23 July 2014, demonstrates that he did not meet the standard of what it takes to be a Soldier in today's Army. At the time, it was in the best interest of the unit and the Army to separate him. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 February 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 December 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 12B28, Combat Engineer / 14 years, 6 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 June 2000 - 3 June 2002 / HD RA, 4 June 2002 - 30 April 2006 / HD IRR, 1 May 2006 - 9 January 2008 / HD (Break in Service) RA, 7 February 2008 - 23 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Czech Republic, SWA / Afghanistan (9 June 2011 - 10 June 2012); Iraq (25 January 2003 - 9 July 2003, 4 October 2005 - 20 November 2005, 6 September 2008 - 28 July 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-3CS, ARCOM-4, AAM, NATOMDL, MUC, PMOF, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-5, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2009 - 30 November 2011 / Among The Best 1 December 2011 - 27 July 2012 / Among The Best 27 July 2012 - 7 May 2013 / Fully Capable 8 May 2013 - 20 July 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 11 December 2014, for being AWOL (between 3 February and 20 July 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,547 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and, restriction for 45 days (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 167 days (AWOL, 3 February 2014 - 20 July 2014) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 21 June 2015, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD with other specified depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder (also claimed as depersonalization and anxiety). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision; self-authored statement; Certificate of Document Filed; two photographs. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has started his own business, coaches a youth football team and has spoken at Suicide Prevention Ceremonies to help Soldiers with their transition to civilian life. 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 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. 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 event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends that he had good service which included four combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 8 February 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20180015569 1