1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 November 2018 b. Date Received: 23 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge characterization was arbitrarily assigned without justification. The VA awarded the applicant 100 percent disability for PTSD, which the applicant was obviously suffering with it during the latter time the applicant was in the Army. The applicant saw no reason how the command could possibly justify the general discharge with a reason for separation of "misconduct (serious offense)." No official documentation exists to warrant that characterization. The applicant served honorably and without incident during the first enlistment as well as in combat. The "Date Entered Active Duty This Period" block, the date shown, 20070726 is incorrect, 2007 is the year the applicant entered the 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, Alcohol Dependence, Alcohol induced Insomnia, and Major Depression. The applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD and 10% for TBI 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 2 October 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he was apprehended for domestic violence assault and family violence (16 July 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 October 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P Infantryman / 4 years, 3 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 July 2007 to 23 January 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / SWA / Iraq, 5 December 2008 to 15 November 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement, dated 18 July 2011, for domestic assault. Military Police Report, dated 19 July 2011, relates the applicant was under investigation for assault-reckless force or violence, family violence, off post. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 August 2007, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder, mild, chronic and alcohol dependence. He was mentally responsible, met retention requirements AR 40-501, Chapter 3. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. VA Rating decision, dated 30 August 2013, relates he was assigned an evaluation of 100 percent for PTSD and 10 percent for TBI (also claimed as memory loss and speech impairment), effective 23 November 2011. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages); history of events (six pages); list of attachments as follows; Attachment 1, DD Form 214; Attachment 2, Time line of Events; Attachment 3, Psychology Reports, Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, Mild TBI Screening Questions and Psychologist's Comments, Psychologist's Recommendations Regarding Discharge, and Letter from VA; Attachment 4, Assault Charge Documents; Attachment 5, Chapter 14 discharge documents; Attachment 6, Enlisted Record Brief; Additional information, Attachment 2, Time line of Events (two pages); Attachment 1, DD Form 214 for second enlistment; Attachment 3a, Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation; Attachment 3b, Mild TBI Screening Questions from Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA); Attachment 3c, Psychologist's Recommendations Regarding Discharge; Attachment 3d, Letter from VA, granting compensation for PTSD and TBI (two pages); Attachment 4, Assault Charge Documents, District / Superior Court, (two pages); Attachments 5 and 6, Chapter 14 discharge documents (four pages), Enlisted Record Brief, ARCOM Certificate, AAM Certificate; SGT promotion orders 079-026, Honorable discharge certificate; Oath of reenlistment, two Recommendations for award (five pages); Airborne course diploma, three Certificates of training, NCO Academy diploma, and CIB Orders 096-017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he enrolled in the College of Southern Maryland, where he achieved high grades and served as president of the campus Veterans Club. Also, during the summer of 2013, as a 100 percent disabled veteran, he applied and was accepted to Rolex's prestigious Lititz Watch Technicum (LWT) School. He passed the certification test administered by the International Watch Institute to be a Watchmaker, and upon graduation, was immediately hired by Rolex USA in New York. 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 requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 discharge characterization was arbitrarily assigned without justification. The record of evidence (military police report) shows that the applicant was under investigation for assault-reckless force or violence, family violence, off post. The applicant further contends, the VA awarded him 100 percent disability for PTSD, he was obviously suffering with it during the latter time he was in the Army. The applicant provided a VA letter that revealed he was assigned an evaluation of 100 percent for PTSD and 10 percent for TBI (also claimed as memory loss and speech impairment), effective 23 November 2011. The applicant also contends, he saw no reason how his command could possibly justify the general discharge with a reason for separation of "misconduct (serious offense) "and no official documentation exists to warrant that characterization. The record of evidence also shows that the applicant was notified he was being discharged by reason of apprehended for domestic violence assault and family violence. The applicant additionally contends, he served honorably and without incident during his first enlistment as well as in combat. 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. Lastly, the applicant additionally contends, the "Date Entered Active Duty This Period" block, the date shown, 20070726 is incorrect, 2007 is the year he entered the Army. His last reenlistment was on 24 January 2009 and regulations in effect at the time did not authorize the issue of a separate DD Form 214. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation of the DD Form 214. It also states that effective 1 October 1979, DD Forms 214 would no longer be issued for immediate reenlistments and that all service would be continuous from the date the last DD Form 214 was issued. Prior to 1 October 1979, a DD Form 214 was prepared when a Soldier was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in the documents with the application. 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 2 October 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 AR20180016666 1