1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 31 July 2018 b. Date Received: 6 August 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, does not believe the mental condition was considered. The applicant was diagnosed and was being treated for this mental condition when the incident happened. The applicant further contends that prior to deployment to Kuwait in May of 2015, the applicant was seeing someone about the mental disorder once a week. During deployment, voices in the applicant’s head got worse and the applicant started seeing more shadow figures and was getting angry over nonsense minor stuff. The applicant makes reference to the submitted letters to make the board better understand the schizophrenia disorder. 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 anxiety and depressed mood/with disturbance of emotions/with disturbance of emotions and conduct, ADHD, Depression, Paranoid Schizophrenia, Psychoses, and Schizotypal Personality Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected for Schizoaffective Disorder from the VA. In summary, 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 5 August 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post- service diagnoses of OBH) and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (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: 8 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: being arrested by Military Police for communicating a threat by saying, “I’m going to shoot the place up”, or words to that effect. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 November 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 4 years, 9 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 March 2011 to 14 November 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (26 August 2013 to 14 January 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, ACM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and his duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care shows the applicant had issues with psychoses. A memorandum for record, dated 6 July 2015, shows the applicant had an ICD9 diagnosis for Psychosis NOS. Briefly, the applicant reported behaving “strangely” and becoming more isolated from his unit. He was found on 5 July 2015, attempting to climb a water tower reportedly out of fear/to end his own life because he was afraid other members from his unit might harm him. The documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs show the applicant has been awarded 100 percent service connected disability for schizotypal personality disorder (claimed as adjustment disorder). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter; personal file; private medical records; Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 6 November 2017, which shows the applicant was awarded 100 percent service connected disability; his enlistment documents; Service School Academic Evaluation Report; reassignment orders; display of patient appointments and medications; enlisted record brief (ERB); several letter of support; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a certificate showing he completed the United States Truck Driving School, Inc. 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 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 seeks relief contending that he does not believe his mental condition was considered. He contends that he was diagnosed and was being treated for his mental condition when the incident happened. He contends that prior to his deployment to Kuwait in May of 2015, he was seeing someone about his mental disorder once a week. During his deployment voices in his head got worse and he started seeing more shadow figures and he was getting angry over nonsense minor stuff. The applicant makes reference to the letters he is submitting to make the board better understand his schizophrenia disorder. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, 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 issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his mental condition was not considered at the time of discharge. Further, it should be noted; by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service and his medical issues were the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 5 August 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBH) and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20190001042 3