1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 November 2018 b. Date Received: 21 November 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 command violated TRADOC Regulation 350-2-5 (b)4-10 ( b). Once the company commander notifies the Soldier that separation action has been initiated, the Soldier will be discharged within 30 calendar days. The Command violated TRADOC Regulation 2-5(b1) (d) and h-4(b). The command sought to punish and not to teach. Soldiers that committed the same offenses were punished, then promoted and shipped to their duty station. The command did not allow the applicant to be rehabilitated or given the opportunity to prove oneself. The command did not want to allow the applicant leave due to the continuous excessive abuse the applicant was receiving. The applicant desires to reenlist in the US Army. 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/mixed anxiety and depressed mood and Alcohol Abuse. VA records only contain DoD content. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 3 April 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: 23 October 2018 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 October 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he received a FG Article 15 for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with another advanced Individual training Soldier and wrongfully consuming alcohol. He demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service and it was in the best interest of the Army to separate him. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 October 2018, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: Election of rights reflect the applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, however; the applicant was not entitled to a board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 October 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2018 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 7 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 13 March 2018 to 19 March 2018 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 13 September 2018, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully engaging in an inappropriate relationship with another Advanced Individual Training Soldier (25 June 2018); and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by COL G.S.T., an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully consuming alcohol (28 July 2017); reduction to PVT / E-1, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 September 2018, revealed he applicant was psychiatrically cleared to participate in the Chapter 14 administrative separation process in accordance with AR 635-200 or any other administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. The applicant received a several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being informed of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 25 September 2018, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety, alcohol use and insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214; complaint and demand for redress under Article 138; Exhibit A; email traffic (seven pages); Memorandum, Important Information for Service Members Separating (three pages); and extra duty tasks. 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 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. 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 misconduct (serious offense), 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 command violated TRADOC Regulation 350-2-5(b) 4-10(b), once the company commander notifies the Soldier that separation action has been initiated, the Soldier will be discharged within 30 calendar days; his Command violated TRADOC Regulation 2-5(b) 1(d) and h-4(b); the command sought to punish and not to teach; and his command did not want to allow the applicant leave due to the continuous excessive abuse he was receiving. 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 applicant further contends, Soldiers that committed the same offenses were punished, then promoted and shipped to their duty station. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant also contends, his command did not allow him to be rehabilitated or given opportunity to prove himself. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant desires to reenlist in the US Army. 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 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 3 April 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 AR20180016465 3