1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 January 2019 b. Date Received: 4 February 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 pertinent part and in effect, the command did not support the applicant with completing the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) process or completing a Quality Management Program (QMP) process, although the applicant had several disabilities including Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Department of Veterans Affairs granted the applicant 100 percent service-connected evaluation, including 70 percent for PTSD combat- related. The applicant successfully served for over 13 years, earning the rank of Sergeant First Class based on good performance and hard work in every assigned position, including recruiting duty. The letter of reprimand was for incidents the applicant was found not guilty of. The Article 15 was for reporting late for duty after visiting daughters in Alaska while on leave and the flight being delayed in February due to bad weather. The command not hearing the applicant's version, although the applicant informed a supervisor, disapproved the request for leave extension. The company commander being relieved of duty due to lying about supporting the enlisted Soldiers' requests for Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) based on their working shifts, clearly indicated the lack of command support. The applicant was treated as being guilty, although being found not guilty of the allegations cited in the letter of reprimand, which ended a career. The supervisors, a CW4 and a MSG, were doing illegal actions by using government facilities and civilian employees for personal use during duty hours. The applicant made an IG complaint and nothing ever happened to them as they quickly left the organization on approved retirements, although an investigation was ongoing. The applicant served honorably up to the day of the unfair discharge, despite limitations due to disabilities and being under medications that controlled severe PTSD and disabilities. 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 Marital Problem and Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant is 100% service- connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is only partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 14 January 2016, the applicant falsified an official document. On 20 February 2016, he absented himself from his unit. On two separate occasions, on 24 February 2016 and 1 March 2016, he lied to a commissioned officer. On 22 May 2015, he inappropriately and unlawfully touched a woman without her consent. (3) Recommended Characterization: Unit commander recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, and the battalion commander recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 May 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waiver (NIF), referred to by the chain of command and approved by the GCMCA, was contingent upon receiving no less than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 October 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (The GCMCA stated that upon carefully considering the applicant's medical condition and his acts of misconduct, he has determined that the applicant's physical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination and that the circumstances in the applicant's case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 June 2014 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 91X40, Maintenance Supervisor / 16 year, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (18 October 2000 to 7 August 2001) / NA IADT (8 August 2001 to 30 January 2002) / UNC ARNG (31 January 2002 to 20 February 2003) / NA ONE MOB (21 February 2003 to 19 July 2004) / HD ARNG (20 July 2004 to 14 March 2005) / NA OIF MOB (15 March 2005 to 18 November 2005) / HD ARNG (19 November 2005 to 9 January 2006) /HD RA (10 January 2006 to 2 May 2007) / HD RA (3 May 2007 to 11 October 2011) / HD RA (12 October 2011 to 12 June 2014) / HD (NIF) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Germany, SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (2 May 2005 to 2 November 2005), Iraq (24 July 2006 to 25 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4; AAM; ARCAM; AGCM-3; NDSM; ICM-3CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; AFRM-M DEV; NCOPDR-3; ASR; OSR-6; MUC-2; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Three NCOERs rendered during period of service under current review: 9 February 2014 thru 30 October 2014, Among the Best 31 October 2014 thru 9 December 2015, Fully Capable 10 December 2015 thru 25 October 2016, Met Standards h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 17 December 2015 (with CID Report, dated 6 November 2015), indicates the applicant was reprimanded for assaulting a woman at his residence on 23 May 2015. FG Article 15, dated 31 March 2016 (with Commander's Inquiry Findings and Recommendations, dated 1 March 2016), for signing a false official document on 14 January 2016, being AWOL on 20 February 2016 and remained absent until 23 February 2016, and making false official statements to a commissioned officer on two separate occasions on 24 February 2016 and 1 March 2016. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,089 pay per month for two months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 April 2016, provided no diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None recorded on DD Form 214 / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA letter, dated 23 January 2017, indicates the applicant was granted 70 percent evaluation for PTSD with adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety, insomnia and depressed mood (also claimed as mood irritable, and night sweats). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 30 January 2019; DD Form 214; VA letter, dated 23 January 2017; and a character reference/supporting statement, dated 24 January 2019. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 available record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 while suffering from PTSD and other disabilities, and being on constant medications that controlled his severe PTSD and disability issues, he served honorably up to the day of his discharge. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant indirectly contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to and subsequent to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant's numerous contentions, as bases for his discharge being unjust and unfair, were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with incidents of misconduct were not discharged, but allowed to retire, although being under ongoing investigation. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. However, the person providing the character reference statement was in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. 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 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 13 June 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 AR20190002014 1