1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2018 b. Date Received: 17 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, when the applicant was deployed, the applicant was fine and everything was going smooth, until the applicant began seeing things the applicant was never mentally prepared to see. The things the applicant saw played a role on how one's mind started to respond to daily situations. The applicant saw people die from hostile fire, explosions and being shot at. Mentally, the applicant was ill, which the applicant still feels the effects of today and the attitude changed completely. The applicant was not the same person. Since the deployment, the applicant became more aggressive towards everyone, prone to more conflicts and had nightmares. When the applicant returned to Germany, the applicant had been on a daily battle to survive the war, but everything continued to haunt the applicant and continues to do so. The applicant was in some trouble, though the applicant did request permission and forgot to sign-out. The applicant found oneself in more issues, because of everything the applicant had experienced, but had no clue what could have been. The applicant had moments where the applicant was aggressive and sought help to understand what was wrong. The applicant needed whatever it was to be gone so the applicant could return to the person the applicant was before deploying. The applicant spoke to a close friend, who told the applicant to talk to the chain of command, which the applicant did with no help. The applicant was mistreated, humiliated in every possible way and punished in ways, which the applicant would never have done to anyone. The applicant was forced to sleep in the hallway in the cold where everyone would see and harass the applicant. The commander during Friday formations would say things about the applicant in front of the company. All of the challenges made the applicant worse than before and lost all desire to do anything more. The applicant's life took a dive, which the applicant could not recover from and requested help to deal with an illness that had haunted the applicant since deployment. The applicant went to speak with a chaplain to seek help because at every possible exit was easiest. The applicant told the chaplain that the applicant would never hurt oneself, though the applicant had thought about it at least once. The applicant had requested help to move back to the United States to another unit because the applicant wanted to stay in and have a fresh start somewhere else, but the request was denied. The applicant's mood was depressed, unhappy, stressed out and could not take it anymore. Because the applicant did not receive the help that was recommended during treatment, but was forced to sign a discharge that the applicant was not happy with. The applicant was told about receiving a general discharge, but the commander swore the applicant would do whatever it took to not allow that to happen. The applicant was threatened that if the applicant did not sign the waiver, the applicant would be court-martialed, which would have been worse for the applicant. The applicant had no other choice, but to sign and put an end to the worst nightmare of not being helped instead and pushed to the curb. The applicant states the commander told the applicant "If I had the power you would never be able to leave Puerto Rico". Based on the aforementioned and the injuries sustained while deployed, the applicant believes an upgrade is warranted to allow the applicant to get the benefits he earned. 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, Occupational Problem, and Depression NOS. The applicant does not have a service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 8 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He received three Article 15's for the following offenses: (86) AWOL, (90) Disobeying a superior commissioned officer, (92) Failure to obey order or regulation, (107) False official statement. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 January 2006, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 January 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 8 April 2002 - 5 February 2003 / HD IADT, 15 May 2002 - 25 October 2002 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (28 March 2004 - 17 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 27 July 2005, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (16 June 2006); willfully disobeyed a lawful order (between 16 and 19 June 2005); and, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (10 July 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $416 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 7 days. FG Article 15, dated 16 September 2005, for being AWOL (between 12 and 18 August 2005); failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (11 May and 19 August 2005); and, willfully disobey a lawful order (23 August 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 2 December 2005, for being AWOL (between 3 and 9 November 2005); and, for making a false official statement (6 October 2005). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $618 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 October 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood; Occupational problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: None 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). 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 he was suffering from mental issues after his deployment, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood; and, Occupational problem. 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 25 October 2005, 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 his commander told him he would do whatever it took to ensure the applicant did not receive a general discharge. 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 he was harrased instead of being helped by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 8 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 AR20190001493 1