1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 December 2018 b. Date Received: 17 December 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, was diagnosed with PTSD while still in the military and subsequently discharged from the Army without the benefit of receiving any treatment for PTSD. The applicant was busted down from an E-4 to E-1 due to behaviors directly related to PTSD, but no one in the unit recognized that the applicant was struggling. No one thought to send the applicant for a behavioral health evaluation before sending the applicant back to the US from Iraq. The applicant feels like the Army failed in that respect and that this has ultimately affected the character of discharge in a negative way. The character of discharge has kept the applicant from getting services in the community that other honorably discharged Veterans can get. 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 Acute PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant is 80% service-connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 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: 18 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 June 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for violating paragraph 2 (c) General Order Number 1, Multi-National Division-Baghdad, by consuming alcohol, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ 6 June 2006; Wrongfully distributed one tablet of Zolpidem, a Schedule IV controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a on 6 June 2006; Committed sodomy with Private First Class X, in violation of Article 125, 6 June 2006; Committed adultery by wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Private First Class X., a woman not his wife, in violation of Article 134 on 6 June 2006; Committed an indecent act with Specialist D.R.D., Private First Class X, and Specialist X, by collectively engaging in sexual intercourse with Private First Class X, in violation of Article 134 on 6 June 2006; and Communicated a threat to Staff Sergeant X, by stating "I am going to shoot Sergeant First Class X., in his sleep" or words to that effect, in violation of Article 134 on 15 June 2006. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 June 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 June 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 September 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 4 years, 5 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 March 2002 to 12 September 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (1 March 2003 to 1 February 2004 and 26 November 2005 to 27 July 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 June 2006, for violating paragraph 2 (c) General Order Number 1, Multi-National Division-Baghdad, by consuming alcohol, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ 6 June 2006, wrongfully distributing one tablet of Zolpidem, a Schedule IV controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a on 6 June 2006, committing sodomy with Private First Class D.C.A., in violation of Article 125, 6 June 2006, committing adultery by wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Private First Class D.C.A., a woman not his wife, in violation of Article 134 on 6 June 2006, committed an indecent act with Specialist D.R.D., Private First Class D.C.A., and Specialist J.J.C., by collectively engaging in sexual intercourse and sodomy with Private First Class D.C.A., in violation of Article 134 on 6 June 2006; and communicating a threat to Staff Sergeant C.L.C., by stating "I am going to shoot Sergeant First Class J.J.D., in his sleep" or words to that effect, in violation of Article 134 on 15 June 2006. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 July 2006, shows the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participated in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. It was certified that the applicant was evaluated at Adult Behavioral Health Service, the purpose of the evaluation was explained to him. He was diagnosed with Acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 24 July 2006 shows the applicant had problems with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression recurrent moderate, and adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a letter/medical documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs North Florida/South Georgia VA Medical Center which indicates the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD. 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 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 was diagnosed with PTSD while still in the military and subsequently discharged from the Army without the benefit of receiving any treatment for PTSD. The applicant contends he was busted down from an E-4 to E-1 due to behaviors directly related to his PTSD, but no one in his unit recognized that he was struggling. No one thought to send him for a behavioral health evaluation before sending him back to the US from Iraq. He feels like the Army failed him in that respect and that this has ultimately affected the character of his discharge in a negative way. His character of discharge has kept him from getting services in the community that other honorably discharged Veterans can get. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the applicant's service record does contain documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); 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 that on 18 July 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he had the mental capacity to understand and participated in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. It was certified that the applicant was evaluated at Adult Behavioral Health Service, the purpose of the evaluation was explained to him. He was diagnosed with Acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 24 July 2006 shows the applicant had problems with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression recurrent moderate, and adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. Also, 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 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 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 25 September 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 AR20190001072 1