1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 February 2019 b. Date Received: 22 February 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant's requests should have been for an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the under other than honorable conditions discharge was improper because the evaluation done at time of discharge was performed by a social worker; and had it been done by a professional doctor as required by the regulations they would have found the same thing that the Veteran Affairs qualified doctors as well as an outside doctor for the Refuge trauma and counseling center found. The under other than honorable conditions discharge was inequitable because no consideration was given to the PTSD that played a major role as a mental disorder and the misconduct was described inaccurately by the command and not understood it as a mental disorder. The under other than honorable conditions discharge was inequitable because of loss of information, lost personnel records, wrong information provided on ERB at time of discharge, command system failures and negligence from the command was not able to get a full evaluation and look into character of service despite this isolated incident. The applicant did not have a medical evaluation board administered on either of two separation packets. 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 Alcohol Use Disorder, Cannabis Misuse, Nightmare Disorder, and Sleep Terror Disorder. The applicant is 0% service- connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. Alcohol Use Disorder and Cannabis Misuse. He did not meet criteria for enrollment into ASAP and education was recommended. VA medical records indicate he is 0% service connected for PTSD and eligible for only BH care. His VA Problem List documents the following BH conditions: PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder. Based on the available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition. While he has been diagnosed with PTSD, this condition does not mitigate the offenses of feloniously rendering criminal assistance by disposing of a murder weapon or cleaning up his car with bleach and hiding his vehicle. Neither one of these offenses is part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 October 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he unlawfully and feloniously rendered criminal assistance in the murder of SPC T.G., on 5 October 2013, by disposing of the murder weapon; he also attempted to clean up the blood in his car using bleach and hid his vehicle; he pled guilty to rendering criminal assistance in the first degree in the murder of SPC T.G., in Pierce County Superior Court of Washington on 13 August 2014; and his sentence consisted of confinement for 12 months and a fine of $1,200. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 December 2014 and 18 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 December 2014, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving characterization of service of no less favorable than honorable. The applicant's chain of command recommended disapproval of the applicant's conditional waiver. On 18 February 2015, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and now voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative*separation board. The separation approving authority accepted the applicant's conditional waiver of an administrative board. He also made the additional findings: The applicant has not deployed in support of a contingency operation within the last 24 months prior to the planned date of separation; and had not been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI, or reasonably alleges that he has either condition based on service while deployed. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 March 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 March 2011 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Grad / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 3 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 15 December 2011 to 3 December 2012 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated, 12 September 2014, relates the applicant was been screened for PTSD and TBI. These conditions were either not present or, if present, do not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. He had no evidence of mental defect emotional illness or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. He was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate intelligently as a respondent in any administrative proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant received two negative counseling statements regarding him being recommended for separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Civilian confinement for 309 days, 6 October 2013 until 14 August 2014. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA document, dated 3 January 2019, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and insomnia. He was prescribed medication for these conditions and medication for depression. Letter, Refuge Trauma and Counseling Center, dated 11 January 2019, shows the applicant receives treatment for PTSD with disassociation. He met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD f43 .10 according to the DSM 5. Letter, PTSD Foundation of America-Camp Hope, dated 1 February 2019, relates the applicant has been a resident since 28 June 2018. Camp Hope provides interim housing and a recovery program for Veterans struggling with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); two DD Forms 214; issues continuation page with duplicates; two e-mails to US Senator; three applicant letters to US Senator; two applicant's counsel petitions to Discharge Review Board (22 pages); support statement; three e-mails, King County Director of Veterans Affairs; two Certificates of achievement; two Certificates of Completion for Parenting Class; two diplomas, Class A truck driver training; letter, Refuge Trauma and Counseling Center; three letters, PTSD Foundation of America-Camp Hope; duplicate 4th step checklist; duplicate PTSD Foundation of America- Camp Hope, graduation checklist; duplicate service hours (ten pages); US Senator letter to applicant; Camp Hope Certificate of completion; student transcript, class A CDL; AMHRR documents (171 pages); My HealtheVet documents (196 pages); Medical Record (109 pages); and a letter, Chief, Congressional Liaison and Inquiries. The applicant through counsel provided numerous duplicate documents with his application. Additional documents: US senate Inquiry with associated documents (56 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's requests should have been for an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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 a general (under honorable conditions) or 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 through counsel seeks relief contending, his under other than honorable conditions discharge was improper because the evaluation done at time of discharge was performed by a social worker; and had it been done by a professional doctor as required by the regulations they would have found the same thing that the Veteran Affairs qualified doctors as well as an outside doctor for the Refuge trauma and counseling center found. The record of evidence shows that on 12 September 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates was been screened for PTSD and TBI. These conditions were either not present or, if present, do not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. He had no evidence of mental defect emotional illness or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant further contends, his under other than honorable conditions discharge was inequitable because no consideration was given to the PTSD that played a major role as a mental disorder and his misconduct was described inaccurately by the command and not understood it as a mental disorder. The service record contains no evidence of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant submitted a VA document, which revealed the applicant was diagnosed post service with PTSD and insomnia. He was prescribed medication for these conditions as well as medication for depression. 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 was commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant also contends, his under other than honorable conditions discharge was inequitable because of loss of information, lost personnel records, wrong information provided on ERB at time of discharge, command system failures and negligence from the command was not able to get a full evaluation and look into character of service despite this isolated incident. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant additionally contends, he did not have a medical evaluation board administered on either of his two separation packets. At the time of discharge, the applicant had no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The record of evidence shows he underwent a mental status evaluation which was contained in both separation packets. 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 9 October 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 AR20190002486 1