1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 June 2018 b. Date Received: 31 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 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, received good marks during the time in service. The applicant made a bad choice that led to discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 May 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: 23 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he engaged in sexual contact with PVT X, sexual contact was without legal justification or lawful authorization and without the permission of PVT X.; he furnished alcohol to PVT X, who was under the age of 21; and he unlawfully entered the barracks room of PVT X (1 December 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 April 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 April 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 January 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 years / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 4 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 27 November 2007 to 11 February 2008 / NA IADT, 12 February 2008 to 30 May 2008 / HD ARNG, 30 May 2008 to 30 May 2008 / HD RA, 31 May 2008 to 10 January 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 18 November 2009 to 17 November 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CIB, MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation, dated 23 January 2013, relates the applicant was under investigation for abusive sexual contact (adult) and unlawful entry. FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2013, for engaging in sexual contact, touching PV2 / E-2 X buttocks and kissing his neck, and such sexual contact was without legal justification or lawful authorization and without the permission of PV2 / E-2 X (1 December 2012); he did, at or near Fort Stewart, Georgia, a place under exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction, he furnished alcohol to PV2 / E-2 X., a Soldier under the age of 21, in violation of Georgia Code 3-3-23(a)(l) assimilated into Federal law by 18 U.S. Code Section 13, which conduct, under the circumstances, was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (1 December 2012); and unlawfully enter the barracks room of PV2 / E-2 X., which conduct, under the circumstances, was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (1 December 2012); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay (suspended) extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2013, relates the applicant had an Axis II diagnosis of anti-social personality traits. He was screened for PTSD and TBI. These conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. He had behavioral abnormalities, no evidence of thought disorder or psychotic symptoms. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. There was no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant received a negative counseling statement informing him of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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 and the issues 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 received good marks during his time in service. 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 further contends, he made a bad choice that led to his discharge. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 May 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 AR20190001459 3