1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 December 2018 b. Date Received: 11 December 2018 b. Counsel: 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, was unfairly recommended for administrative separation due to abuse of power, poor leadership and total disregard to physical and mental health condition diagnosed by a primary and secondary physician. The separation was in retaliation of the applicant pointing out the mistreatments in the unit and the chain of command dishonoring the applicant's physical and mental medical profile. The applicant found out about the separation after receiving an Article 15 for supposedly disrespect to the company commander and a senior NCO. The applicant wants the discharge characterization to medically retire instead of general (under honorable condition); because the applicant was pending a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) before the administrative separation was initiated. The applicant wants the Sergeant rank reinstated on the DD Form 214 if possible. The case was thrown out after trial and the applicant was not charged with any crime or misconduct afterwards. The separation makes it hard for the applicant to find a good job to help the family both physically, emotionally. The applicant has service connect disabilities. 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, Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Adult Physical Abuse, Child Neglect, FAP Involvement, mTBI, and PTSD. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD 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 24 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: 24 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 March 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The notification memorandum is not contained in the available record; however, the unit commander's recommendation memorandum shows that the applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he committed assault when he punched X Jr., knocking him down and continuing to punch him, leaving visible injuries on his face. When Mr. X., escaped from the applicant, he (applicant) punched a window and broke it (14 December 2016); he committed domestic assault when he struck his wife, X, (31 May 2017); he was disrespectful toward CPT X., ( 4 January 2017); he was disrespectful toward SSG X., (28 September 2016); and he shoved SSG X., (19 October 2016). (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander's characterization of service is not contained in the available record. The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The senior intermediate commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 February 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested to have his case heard by an administrative separation board. On 13 August 2018, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's separation from the Army with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The separation approving authority reviewed the separation packet, the administrative separation board proceedings, and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings pertaining to the applicant. He carefully considered the applicant's service record, administrative separation board proceedings, and his acts of misconduct. He also reviewed the completed MEB proceedings to determine the basis for this separation. Having considered these matters, he found the applicant's condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation, the circumstances in the applicant's case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings would continue. He directed the applicant's discharge from the US Army and his service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 October 2018 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 March 2016 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 years / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 10 years, 7 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 May 2008 to 13 November 2011 / HD RA, 14 November 2011 to 4 November 2014 / HD RA, 5 November 2014 to 13 March 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Iraq x2, 15 April 2009 to 24 December 2009 and 22 May 2010 to 12 December 2011/ Afghanistan, 15 April 2015 to 15 January 2016 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-5, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-2CS, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR, KDSM, ASR, OSR-3, MOVSM, NATO MDL, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2015 to 30 October 2016, Met Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 27 February 2011, for driving a motor vehicle on 15 May 2010, in the State of Tennessee with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent, in violation of Tennessee law. The applicant received a FG Article 15 for Article 89, two specifications of Article 91 and Article 128. The punishment imposed was reduction to SPC / E-4, extra duty for 45 days (suspended) and an oral reprimand. This Article 15 is not contained in the available record; see unit commander's recommendation memorandum. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: MEB Proceedings, dated 20 March 2017; revealed the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, unspecified; medically unacceptable in accordance with AR 40-501, Chapter 3-32a, b. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Service Member Pre- Separation / Transition Counseling Checklist (three pages); MEB memorandum; Exclusion Letter from Fort Campbell; Request to Direct Separation Through Medical Channels memorandum (two pages); MEB Proceedings; administrative separation board findings and recommendations (two pages); DD Form 214 worksheet (two pages); General Sessions Court of Montgomery County, Tennessee; SGT L's statement; Curriculum and Attendance for Domestic Abuse Group (three pages); Certificate of Achievement; Physical Profile Record (two pages); Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer's Log (two pages); Blanchfield Army Community Hospital Document; Cumberland Hall Hospital Document (three pages); Inspector General Action Request (two pages); Memorandum, Domestic Abuse Group; AAM Certificate; NCOER (two pages); two character statements; memorandum, appeal of FG Article 15 (two pages); sworn statements (nine pages); letter, US Senator with privacy Act Release Form. 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 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, he was unfairly recommended for administrative separation due to abuse of power, poor leadership and total disregard to physical and mental health condition diagnosed by his primary and secondary physician. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, his separation is was retaliation for him pointing out the mistreatments in his unit and his chain of command dishonoring his physical and mental medical profile; and he found out about his separation after receiving an Article 15 for supposedly disrespect to his company commander and a senior NCO. 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 also contends, he wants his discharge characterization to be medically retired instead of general (under honorable condition); because he was pending a MEB before his administrative separation was initiated. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant additionally contends, he wants his sergeant rank be reinstated on his DD Form 214 if possible. The applicant was reduced to SPC / E-4 by a FG Article for violations of Articles of the UCMJ. Therefore, his rank cannot be reinstated. Moreover, the applicant contends, his case was thrown out after trial and he was not charged with any crime or misconduct afterwards. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge is authorized for the same or a closely related offense. The applicant provided a General Sessions Court of Montgomery County, Tennessee document, which shows that the count(s) were dismissed. However, that document did not specify the reason why the count(s) were dismissed. Moreover, the applicant contends, his separation makes it hard for him to find a good job to help his family both physically, emotionally. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Lastly, the applicant contends, he has service connect disabilities. 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 he has service connect disabilities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were in some were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 24 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 AR20190000277 1