1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 August 2018 b. Date Received: 13 August 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 applicant's service was plagued by poor decision making, immaturity and severe substance abuse. The applicant would like to apply for and receive the GI Bill and move forward with life. The applicant was also misinformed and thought there was a mandatory six month waiting period before being able to upgrade the discharge. The applicant was barred from reenlistment and hopes to have the bar lifted before finishing school. 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 ADHD, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant is 30% service-connected for Generalized Anxiety 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 17 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 January 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to go to his place of duty x3 (13 July 2016, 3 November 2016 and 6 March 2017); he was disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer x2 (3 March 2017 and 6 March 2017); and he failed to obey a lawful order x3 (30 January 2017, 6 March 2017 and 13 July 2017). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 February 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68X10, Behavioral Health Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 29 March 2017, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (13 July 2016); without authority, go from his appointed place of duty (6 March 2017); having received a lawful order from SSG F.M., a noncommissioned officer, to turn in two delinquent training certificates, an order which it was his duty to obey, did willfully disobey the same (3 March 2017); disrespectful in language and deportment toward SSG F.M., a noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of her office, by raising his voice, being rude and moving his hands while in parade rest (6 March 2017); having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SGT A.B. to perform preventive maintenance checks and services on a LMT, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by leaving his place of duty without finishing the mission (6 March 2017); having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SPC T.L., to bring a water source for physical training, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by showing to physical training formation without a water source (30 January 2017), fail to obey a lawful general regulation, by failing to remain clean shaven while on duty (30 January 2017); and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SPC Tian, Li, to show up* at least 15 minutes before any formation, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by not showing to 0630 physical training formation (13 July 2016); reduction to PFC / E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $467 pay, extra duty for 14 days (suspended) and restriction for 14 days (suspended). The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and initiation and removal of Flagg. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 1 November 2017, relates the applicant was diagnosed with insomnia, anxiety, ADHD and ADHD adjustment disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DAMIS Patient Progress Report; and a support statement. 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 Army allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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. 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 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant 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 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 seeks relief contending, his service was plagued by poor decision making, immaturity and severe substance abuse. The applicant's intermediate commander wrote a statement on the applicant's behalf. He iterated that the applicant's misconduct was related more to immaturity, poor impulse control, and a lack of common sense than intentional malicious intent. In addition, the applicant had a substance issue that also contributed to his patterns of misconduct. He voluntarily sought treatment for this substance issue through the Army Substance Abuse Program and successfully completed it's intensive outpatient treatment program. The applicant further contends, he would like to apply for and receive his GI Bill and move forward with his life. 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 was also misinformed and thought there was a mandatory six month waiting period before being able to upgrade his discharge. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant additionally contends, he was barred from reenlistment and hopes to have his bar lifted before finishing school. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There was no basis to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, the person providing the character reference statements was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, this statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 17 July 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 AR20180015854 1