1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2018 b. Date Received: 19 November 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The applicant's requests should have been for an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, suffers from PTSD and TBI, was injured and has shrapnel in the head, which affected the memory and judgement. The applicant recently had a MRI and was informed that the shrapnel has moved and is causing further problems. A prior records review (AR20070007956), was conducted on 30 May 2008. The Board upgraded the applicant's characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions), based on the overall length and quality of service, to include combat service. 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, Parent-Child Problem, Acute Encephalopathy, and Other Specified Family Circumstances. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD or TBI. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to determine if 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 25 September 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 July 2006 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he was found guilty at a Summary Courts-Martial convened on 27 February 2006, for wrongful use of a controlled substance on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 April 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 June 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 June 2003 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / GED Certificate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63M10, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Maintainer / 3 years, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 13 March 2004 to 14 March 2004 f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 July 2005, for wrongful use of marijuana between (21 May 2005 and 21 June 2005); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $692 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended), and an oral reprimand. Summary Courts-Martial, dated 27 February 2006, the applicant was found guilty of wrongful use of marijuana x2 (28 November 2005 and 14 January 2006). He was sentenced to a reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $849 pay, with forfeiture in excess of $425 pay (suspended) and confinement for 30 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 April 2006, indicates the evaluation revealed no evidence of suicidal or homicidal behavior, altered thought process or any other mental health condition that would explain the behavior that resulted in the initiation of his administrative action. The applicant was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); additional documents, letter, Director, Case Management Division, DD Form 214; chronological record of medical care (three pages); Mount Carmel East medical documents (three pages); Encephalopathy newsletter (two pages); post-deployment health assessment (four pages); Purple Heart certificate; and an ARCOM certificate. 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. 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, 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The applicant's requests should have been for 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 a general (under honorable conditions) or 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, he suffers from PTSD and TBI, he was injured and has shrapnel in his head, which affected his memory and judgement. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD nor a TBI diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant further contends, he recently had a MRI and was informed that the shrapnel has moved and is causing further problems. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that shrapnel has moved and is causing further problems. Of note, a prior records review (AR20070007956), was conducted on 30 May 2008. The Board upgraded the applicant's characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions), based on his overall length and quality of service, to include his combat service. 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 25 September 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 AR20180016556 1