1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 December 2018 b. Date Received: 14 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he started having mental health issues/PTSD after his friend was killed in Korea and he did not have the coping skills to manage. He contends that he could not handle the pressure that was being put on him once his rank was increased. He did not have the personality to be in charge of or supervise other people as people tend to take advantage of him and his naiveté. He did not know what else to do and because he couldn't handle the pressure he took off. He knows now that wasn't the thing to do, but he did not know what else to do at the time. He had honorable service prior to this incident and now ask that he be considered for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 impaired cognitive abilities. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Schizoaffective Disorder, PTSD, unknown basis, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and all other evidence presented, the Board determined that clemency is warranted based on length and quality of service, and circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD and OBHI diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. A change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 12 October 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge: Not in the Available Record (2) Adjudged Sentence: Not in the Available Record (3) Date/Sentence Approved: Not in the Available Record (4) Appellate Review: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocated General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the remaining finding of guilty. The sentence of reduction to Private E-1, confinement for 225 days, and a Bad-Conduct Discharge, adjudged on 20 February 2003, as promulgated in Special Court-martial Order Number 9, Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Division, Unit # 15041, APO AP 96258, dated 8 April 2003, was affirmed. The portion of the sentence extending to confinement having been served. Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad-conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 11 March 2004 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 November 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 8 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 May 1995 to 16 February 1998 / HD RA, 17 February 1998 to 13 November 2000 / HD RA, 14 November 2000 to 13 November 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Kuwait (dates unknown) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DA Form 4187's (Personnel Action) changing the applicant's duty status from Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave (AWOL) effective 19 June 2002 and AWOL to Dropped from the Rolls (DFR) effective 19 July 2002. Special Court-Martial Orders as described in previous paragraph 3c(2). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Absent Without Leave; 193 days (19 June 2002 to 28 December 2002) / mode of return unknown and confinement military authority: 159 days (20 February 2003 to 25 August 2003) as a result of Special Court-Martial. The DD Form 214 under review makes reference to 382 days of excess leave (27 September 2003 to 12 October 2004). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant (i.e., progress notes and consult requests) indicate he has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent; alcohol use disorder-severe; and PTSD and Depression. Page 64 of the medical documents submitted by the applicant make reference to the applicant having had difficulty adjusting to the military lifestyle including literacy challenges as a cook. They were trying to promote him in the ranks and he was traumatized about this ideal. It was so traumatic that he went AWOL for 6 months. He left the military because he was not ready psychologically and functionally. Specifically, he burned up 8 pans of bacon, unable to multi- task; written up, counseled; just unable to adjust; difficulty shining his boots, understand the ribbons on his uniform (could not put ribbons on his shirt correctly even after support from leadership and service members. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; letters of support; medical documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment. 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 bad conduct discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 3, Section IV, by reason of court-martial, other, with a characterization of service of bad conduct. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JJD (i.e., court-martial, other, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The partial documents found in the record show the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court- martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant seeks relief contending that he started having mental health issues/PTSD after his friend was killed in Korea and he did not have the coping skills to manage. He contends that he could not handle the pressure that was being put on him once his rank was increased. He did not have the personality to be in charge of or supervise other people as people tend to take advantage of him and his naiveté. He did know what else to do and because he couldn't handle the pressure so he took off. He knows now that wasn't the thing to do, but he did not know what else to do at the time. He had honorable service prior to this incident and now ask that he be considered for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Also, the fact that the applicant is receiving medical treatment from the Veterans Administration for medical conditions the applicant suffered with while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full judicial due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and all other evidence presented, the Board determined that clemency is warranted based on length and quality of service, and circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD and OBHI diagnosis). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. A change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20190000086 3