1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 March 2019 b. Date Received: 15 March 2019 c. Previous Records Review: 4 April 2014, AR20130014182 (Reconsideration based on Hagel and Kurta memoranda, and NDAA 2017 PTSD Law for new PTSD diagnosis) d. 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, that the discharge was based on a PTSD-related incident after returning from Afghanistan. Therefore, the Veterans Affairs granting the applicant service-connected disability for PTSD justifies the reason for discharge. Since 2013, the applicant has been employed with a veteran service organization, which proves continuous dedication to the country. 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. The applicant is 30% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Abuse and Depressive Disorder NOS. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 May 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 September 2010, the applicant assaulted and threatened to kill his wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 May 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 June 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 September 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Military Police / 2 years, 9 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (14 May 2009 to 14 May 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: NAM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; VUA; NATO MDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Civilian Police Report with an Affidavit of Probable Cause, dated 26 September 2010, rendered by a civilian arresting officer summarizes the events leading to probable cause for arresting and charging the applicant with "Felony Menacing, a Class 5 Felony" and "3rd Degree Assault, a Class 1 Misdemeanor." Negative counseling statement for being involved in a domestic violence case and being ordered to have no-contact with his spouse. District Court Stipulation for Deferred Judgment and Sentence and Court Order with Plea Agreement, dated 28 February 2011, indicates that following a joint agreement to defer sentencing for a period of two years, the applicant pleaded guilty to "Assault in the Third Degree," and agreed to have the case remain open but that the judge's imposition of a sentence based on declaring him to be convicted would not take place, as long as he complied with the stipulated conditions cited in the stated Stipulation. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 March 2011, providing no diagnosis, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for the administrative separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (Civilian Confinement on 26 September 2010 to 28 September 2010) / The applicant was released from confinement and returned to his unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Rating Decision, dated 23 February 2018, indicates the applicant was granted 30 percent evaluation for service-connected PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 11 March 2019; VA Rating Decision, dated 23 February 2018; CAB Permanent Orders; letter of recommendation, dated 29 January 2013; DD Form 214; and supporting statement, dated 20 December 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since 2013, he has been employed with a veteran service organization, which proves his continuous dedication to his country. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 serious incidents 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 his discharge was based on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder-related incident after returning from Afghanistan. A careful review of 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 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 the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishment, the Board can find that his accomplishments and his complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the characterization of his service. The third party statements provided in support of the applicant's request for relief were carefully considered. However, the persons providing the statements were not 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 4 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 AR20190004062 5