1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 December 2011 b. Date Received: 11 December 2011 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, that the applicant served honorably and was awarded (2) Army Good Conduct Medals for service and dedication to the US Army. The applicant contends that after the deployments and wife leaving, the applicant sought mental health help. The applicant then received an unwarranted discharge for seeking mental health after two combat tours. The applicant is currently rated at 50 percent VA disabled for PTSD. 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 depressed mood and Depression. The applicant is 90% service-connected; 50% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 October 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having displayed a recurring pattern of misconduct over the past three months that had included multiple counseling statements for leaving his place of duty, failing to obey orders and regulations and insubordination and disobedience to both commissioned and noncommissioned officers. His behavior was completely unacceptable and showed a lack of good order and discipline. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 19 October 2007, the applicant conditionally waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board if the separation authority separated him with a character of service no worse than general (under honorable conditions). (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 May 2004 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 74D1G, Chemical Operations Specialist / 8 years, 6 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 April 1999 to 2 January 2003 / HD RA, 3 January 2003 to 3 May 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (24 October 2005 to 24 October 2006) and Iraq (27 February 2003 to 7 July 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-5, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: May 2004 to January 2005 / Fully Capable February 2005 to January 2006 / Fully Capable 1 February 2006 to 31 December 2006 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 September 2007, for without authority, failed to go from his prescribed place of duty on 10 September 2007, disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer on 6 September 2007 and from a superior noncommissioned officer on 20 August 2007, 7 September 2007, and 10 September 2007. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1031.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 October 2007, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for occupational problem. It was noted that there was not psychiatric disorder that required disposition through medical channels, the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative or judicial actions deemed appropriated by his command. Several negative counseling statements for various actions of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Form's 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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. 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 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 seeks relief contending that he served honorably and was awarded (2) Army Good Conduct Medals for his service and dedication to the US Army. The applicant contends that after his deployments and wife leaving him he sought mental health help. He then received an unwarranted discharge for seeking mental health after two combat tours. He is currently rated at 50 percent VA disabled for PTSD. The applicant's contentions were noted and the applicant is to be commended on his in-service accomplishments. However, although the applicant claims he is currently rated 50 percent disabled for PTSD; the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 October 2007, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for occupational problem. It was noted that there was not psychiatric disorder that required disposition through medical channels, the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative or judicial actions deemed appropriated by his command. The service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 18 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, 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 AR20180016300 1