1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 January 2019 b. Date Received: 7 January 2019 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, hopes of pursuing career opportunities that will allow the applicant to better provide for the family. Before the incident on 6 February 2012, the applicant had an exemplary military service record, which resulted in multiple awards. After leaving service, the applicant has continued to serve as a Department of the Army contractor, training Afghan National Defense Security Forces and now as a DOD civilian with Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division. The applicant understands that the incident that ended a military career was outside the norms of professional behavior and accepts responsibility for that mistake. The applicant believes being judged by that one mistake for the rest of life, is excessive punishment. The applicant believes the behavior stemmed from under-treated TBI and an anxiety disorder. The applicant states, while stationed at Redstone Arsenal, the applicant realized something was wrong and self-referred to Behavioral Health for stress and anxiety issues. The applicant was able to manage the stressors for a while, but in truth, was lying to oneself. The applicant tried to Soldier up, do the duty and suppress the symptoms, which the applicant now realizes was the wrong course of action and should have asked for more help. On 6 February 2012, things erupted and spun out of control quickly as the applicant allowed the anxiety to manifest, corrupt and cause the applicant to act in a manner that was totally out of character. The applicant takes great pride in everything, especially the time in the Army as an EOD Technician. The current character of service is not an accurate representation of the applicant's service to the country. The applicant's hope is the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum clarifying guidance for modification of discharges, will aid in the Board's decision during the review of this case. The applicant now lives in and holds a Bachelor's degree in Emergency and Disaster Management from American Military University (AMU) and a member of Epsilon Pi Phi Honor Society. The applicant is currently pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Security Management. The applicant is genuinely and unequivocally remorseful for the incident that ended an Army career and wishes to press a reset button and handle the event differently; more precisely, in a professional manner. The applicant misses military service and realizes the action in 2012, was a departure from the standards expected of a United States Soldier. Despite the blemish, the applicant continues to utilize the values that were instilled by the applicant's parents and refined by the military. The applicant is not questioning the legality of discharge, however, humbly requests again for relief in the characterization to better provide for the family. The applicant further details contentions in a self-authored statement. 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, Atypical Depressive Disorder and Concussion. The applicant is 50% service-connected; 30% for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 10% for mTBI from the VA. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 July 2019, and by a 3-2 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 11 February 2012, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violating Article 89, UCMJ, the applicant, did, at or near Multinational Base Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan, on or about 6 February 2012, behave himself with disrespect toward First Lieutenant P. F., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by saying to him "if you know how the fuck to get there then you should lead" and "you don't know who the fuck you are talking to, guy," or words to that effect. Charge II: violating Article 90, UCMJ, the applicant, did, at or near Multinational Base Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan, on or about 6 February 2012, strike First Lieutenant P. F. on the face with his hands, his superior commissioned officer, then known to the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, who was then in the execution of his office. Charge III: violating Article 107, UCMJ, the applicant, did, at or near Multinational Base Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan, on or about 6 February 2012, with intent to deceive, make to Sergeant W. C., a military policeman assigned to the Combined Team Uruzgan Provost Marshal Office, an official statement, to wit: "We returned to our starting point where I exited my vehicle to talk to 1LT F. to work out our differences," or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Charge IV: violating Article 134, UCMJ, the applicant, did, at or near Multinational Base Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan, on or about 6 February 2012, wrongfully communicate to Specialist M. G. and Specialist C. S. a threat to injure First Lieutenant P. F. by stating he would "beat up" First Lieutenant P. F., or words to that effect, which conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 February 2012 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 26 February 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 March 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Associate's Degree / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 89D48, EOD Specialist / 16 years, 10 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USNR, 21 June 1995 - 23 October 1995 / NA USN, 24 October 1995 - 23 October 1999 / HD USNR, 24 October 1999 - 16 November 2000 / NA RA, 17 November 2000 - 27 May 2004 / HD RA, 28 May 2004 - 26 March 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 November 2002 - 22 June 2003 / 23 May 2004 - 17 November 2004 / 17 January 2012 - 21 July 2008); Iraq (8 June 2006 - 10 December 2006 / 29 April 2007 - 21 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, BSM-4, ARCOM-2, USNAM, MUC, AGCM-3, USNGCM, NDSM-BSS, ACM-2CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, USNSSDR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 29 February 2008 - 22 July 2008 / Among The Best 19 October 2009 - 1 May 2010 / Among The Best 1 May 2010 - 30 April 2011 / Fully Capable 1 May 2011 - 15 August 2011 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Investigator Activity Summary, dated 26 February 2012, reflects, on 6 February 2012 at approximately 1145hrs, the investigator was notified by Lt W of the Royal Australian Air force Police (RAAF) who was notified by the Base Defense Operations Center (BDOC) of a suspected assault. Investigation revealed that while at the heavy weapons range on Multi National Base Tarin Kowt, a verbal altercation that took place over the radio while in route to the heavy weapons turned physical when the applicant got out of his vehicle and entered LT F's vehicle and proceeded to hit him with a closed fist, hitting him in his face and upper body while at the heavy weapons range. The applicant was pulled off of LT F by SPC S, and SPC G After the altercation was broken up, LT F and his team SGT E and SPC A moved from the heavy weapons range and back to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) compound and notified the chain of command. Injuries sustained in the altercation were minor scrapes on the upper lip and a sore nose to LT F, and minor cuts and scrapes to the right hand and head of the applicant. There was no alcohol or drug involvement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 30 July 2012, which reflects the applicant was rated 10 percent disability for Traumatic Brain Injury (claimed as concussion); and, 30 Percent disability for anxiety disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; a self-authored statement; Secretary of Defense Guidance (memo); ADRB decision letter; and, VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has obtained employment; he holds a Bachelor's degree in Emergency and Disaster Management from American Military University (AMU); is a member of Epsilon Pi Phi Honor Society; and, is pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Security Management. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for TBI and it was this untreated condition that affected his behavior and led to his discharge. 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included five combat tours. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Medical Documents - 15 Pages Navy Evaluations - 15 Pages NCOER's - 20 Pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 July 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20190001781 6