1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 November 2018 b. Date Received: 13 November 2018 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, served on active duty for over 14 years and was discharged because of an injustice suffered at the hands of the last command. The applicant received punishment imposed in a Field Grade Article 15 for disrespect to a Senior Non-commissioned Officer and two counts of Failure to obey rules and regulations IAW AR-600-20 (Fraternization, Uniform Code of Military Justice). The applicant states, the finding of guilt at the Article 15, was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and proper procedures were not followed in the execution of the Article 15. The applicant admits to being in the presence of two junior Soldiers, but there was nothing about the conduct that compromised or appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command; since they were not the applicant's Soldiers. The applicant never witnessed the two females being sexually assaulted or drinking. The applicant did not disrespect MSG J and does not know what angered MSG J, regarding the applicant or the situation. The applicant was never given a copy of his Article 15 supporting documentation, even after the second reading, and was not given a copy of the file. The evidence confirms that the applicant had been upfront and honest throughout the process. The applicant states the chapter process was not handled expeditiously causing stress upon a marriage. After several delays, the applicant was offered a general discharge, and accepted in order to get back home to the family and relieve the stress brought upon the marriage and sanity. The whole punishment process and discharge imposed has affected life in many ways. It caused the end of a marriage, and caused the applicant to miss significant time with the children. The process has caused the applicant to lose out on many different jobs; both civilian and government. The applicant served the country honorably and had deployments to Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The whole ordeal caused a divorce and career. Also, the PTSD was not considered during the Article 15 and administrative process from the military. The applicant had been an outstanding citizen before, during and after the military. The applicant provides a letter for the Board's consideration, which further details the contentions. 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Impulse Control Disorder, Depression with Anxiety. VA records indicate the applicant is 90% service-connected; 50% for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant had a BH diagnoses, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 February 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He received a Field Grade Article 15 given by the Brigade Commander for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; and, two violations of engaging in a prohibited relationship, in violation of AR 600-20, Article 92, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 August 2013, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an "Honorable" discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 9 August 2013, the separation authority approved the applicant's conditional waiver "to accept a discharge with a characterization no less favorable than a General (Under Honorable Conditions)." / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / 2 years College / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 31B24, H3 Military Police / 14 years, 5 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 February 1999 - 9 March 2003 / HD RA, 10 March 2003 - 21 July 2005 / HD RA, 22 July 2005 - 24 February 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Italy, Korea, Kosovo, SWA / Afghanistan (27 March 2008 - 27 June 2009) Iraq (10 May 2004 - 28 February 2008); Kosovo (8 October 2002 - 21 May 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, KCM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5, NATOMDL-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2008 - 31 January 2011 / Among The Best 1 February 2011 - 31 August 2012 / Fully Capable 1 September 2012 - 1 August 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Commander's Inquiry, dated 11 October 2012, substantiated the allegation that the applicant was disrespectful in language and deportment towards a superior noncommissioned officer on 28 September 2012, in violation of Article 91. Charge Sheet, dated15 February 2013, reflects the applicant was charged with: Violation of Article 91, UCMJ: On or about 28 September 2012, was disrespectful in language toward Master Sergeant J, a superior non-commissioned officer, by saying to him. "Do you, want to take this outside," or words to that effect. Violation of Article 92, UCMJ: On 2 June 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4- 14b(1), Army Regulation 600-20 (Rapid Action Revision, dated 4 August 2011), Command Policy, dated 18 March 2008, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with Specialist D, that appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command. On 8 July 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4- 14b(1), Army Regulation 600-20 (Rapid Action Revision, dated 4 August 2011), Command Policy, dated 18 March 2008, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with Specialist K, that appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command. FG Article 15, dated 28 March 2013, for disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer (28 September 2012); and, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationships with SPC D, on 2 June 2012, and SPC K, on 8 July 2012, that appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,201 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (illegible date), reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant states he has PTSD and provided a copy of his VA service-connected disability compensation letter, dated 8 November 2018, which reflects the applicant was rated 90 percent combined disability. The letter did not reflect that nature of any of his disabilities. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Compensation Letter; a self-authored statement; and, case separation documents. 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. 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 that 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 contends his chapter proceedings were not conducted in a timely manner, which caused stress on him and his marriage. Further, his PTSD was not considered during the process. However, 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 applicant contends that his punishment under Article 15, did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the proper procedures were not followed. However, the applicant's issues do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends he has PTSD and provided a copy of his VA compensation, that doesn't reflect any specific disabilities. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 6 February 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 AR20190000148 1