1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 November 2018 b. Date Received: 26 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, was a Specialist who had just completed the first term of service and reenlisted to accept an assignment in Germany. The applicant wanted to further a career and decided to reclassify to expand one's horizons with more assignment opportunities. The applicant arrived at Fort Lee and began school for the new job, which the applicant reenlisted to gain. The applicant states, everything was going great and all the newly enlisted and prior service personnel were there to attend school and continue on with their careers wherever the Army may take them. A week before the final test and graduation, the applicant along with another prior enlisted, Sergeant H., were removed from class and were put under investigation for sexual harassment with one of the female prior service Soldiers. The remaining prior enlisted students were confused as to why the applicant and Sergeant H. had stepped out of the class. The "alleged victim" was known for being inappropriate with the rest of the prior enlisted, which is why they were all confused as well. The investigating officer could not find any evidence that the applicant or the other prior enlisted Soldiers had done anything thing to sexually harass the "alleged victim." Because of this, the applicant's Article 15 reflected a violation of Article 91, UCMJ, for "insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer" for disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer. The applicant avoids situations to where it leads to sexual harassment because it is intolerable and inappropriate. The applicant was stressed about the whole situation because the applicant was accused of something the applicant does not believe. This takes a toll on one and messes with them mentally and emotionally. The Article 15 also reflected the applicant had inappropriate relations with initial entry trainees because they followed each other on social media (lnstagram). The way the class was set up, the students had to interact with the new Soldiers coming in and the applicant regrets following them on lnstagram because the applicant did not realize it would get the applicant into this amount of trouble. They applicant was charged with a violation for each person that was added, which meant the applicant had four violations of Article 92, UCMJ, for "Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation." The applicant had one violation of Article 91, and four violations of Article 92, which served as the basis for the "Pattern of Misconduct" on reflected on his DD Form 214. The punishment imposed was the maximum punishment one could receive given the applicant's rank, which included reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $867 per month for 2 months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Since the applicant had already out-processed the previous duty station, the applicant could not be sent back and could not continue on to Germany because the applicant did not fulfill the course requirements. The applicant was stuck there for nine months with no leadership or guidance from the temporary unit. The unit did not know where to go from there and after a couple of weeks, the first sergeant, asked the applicant if the applicant wanted to stay in the Military or get out? The applicant states, with the stress and depression the applicant was going through, the applicant was just at the point of wanting to go home. The applicant told the first sergeant to separate the applicant. The applicant served the Army for four amazing years, which molded the applicant into the person the applicant is today. The applicant earned multiple awards prior to the incident, including the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Army Achievement Medal. Since discharge, the applicant has matured and learned from the mistakes and wants to say that the actions which led to discharge, do not reflect how the applicant was raised to be. The applicant's family, past and present leaders and close friends, know who the applicant is as a person and knows the applicant has only positivity and encouragement to share with anyone who the applicant crosses paths with, no matter who the person is. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant's violations of TRADOC Regulation 350-6, Enlisted Initial Entry Training Policies and Administration, dated 7 November 2013; He had continued to violate established rules and regulations between 28 August 2014 and 21 October 2014, by contacting and communicating with Advanced Initial Training Soldiers through social media and other means on multiple occasions; He violated the Army's Equal Opportunity and Sexual Harassment Policies and failed to obey an order by a noncommissioned officer; and, The seriousness of the circumstances is such that his retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 21 April 2015, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 May 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 October 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A1P, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 August 2011 - 27 October 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 June 2013, for willfully disobeying a lawful order by making inappropriate comments and unwanted sexual advances towards SPC D. N. (28 August 2014); violate a lawful general regulation by contacting PFC T. D, PV2 P. D., PFC C. B. and PVT T. L. who were Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Soldiers, concerning a personal relationships not related to the training mission (between 28 August and 21 October 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $867 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. AR 15-6 Investigation Facts, Findings and Recommendations, dated 29 October 2014, reflects the investigation officer found that the preponderance of the evidence that the applicant and SGT F. H. violated AR 600-20, Chapter 7-5 (a) (b) (c), AR 600-20, Chapter 7-6 (b), TRADOC Regulation 350- 6, Chapter 2-6 (d), Uniform Code of, Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 and UCMJ Article 107. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2015, 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: Other Problem Related to Employment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 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 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 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 that he had good 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 AR20190001872 5