1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: b. Date Received: c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, was wrongfully accused of child endangerment after word spread that the sixteen-year old son was highly-intoxicated at a house party. The chain of command moved forward with a baseless allegation and threatened the applicant with a federal conviction and possible jail time and a Bad Conduct Discharge. The applicant's overall quality of service greatly outweighs the alleged misconduct regarding the Article 134, UCMJ violation; and earned a litany of impressive awards and decorations during the Army career. The applicant is 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veteran Affairs for PTSD with major depressive disorder, social anxiety, alcohol abuse, and a history of TBI. 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 Partner Relational Problems, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Alcohol Abuse, ADHD, and Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant is 100% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder. 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 15 November 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: No (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 February 2014 / 4 years / 5 months extension b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 years / 2 years college / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13B10, Canon Crewmember / 10 years, 3 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 September 2005 to 17 June 2007 / HD RA, 18 June 2008 to 18 October 2010 / HD RA, 19 October 2010 to 2 February 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / Hawaii / SWA / Iraq, 7 October 2006 to 7 January 2008 / and Afghanistan, 23 February 2009 to 19 February 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-5, AGCM-3, NDSM, ICM-2 CS, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, CAB, VUA-2 g. Performance Ratings: 18 January 2014 to 8 May 2015, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Rating Decision, dated 4 November 2011, relates the applicant was service connected PTSD with major depressive disorder, social anxiety, alcohol abuse, and history of TBI, also claimed as concussion, mental disorder, difficulty with concentration, suicide ideation, sleep disturbance, adjustment disorder, and insomnia is granted with an evaluation of 100 percent, effective 22 January 2016. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); attorney's brief (seven pages); Exhibit 1, DD Form 214 (two pages); Exhibit 2, Enlisted Record Brief; Exhibit 3, Article 32(b) Investigation of applicant (six pages); Exhibit 4, VA letter, summary of benefits (two pages) and a VA Rating Decision (20 pages); Exhibit 5, Social Security Administration, Notice of Decision (three pages); Exhibit 6, Social Security Administration, Order of Administrative Law Judge (eight page); Exhibit 7, Barstow Community College, Accessibility Coordination Center and Educational Services (ACCESS) certificate; Exhibit 8, Phi Theta Kappa certificate; Exhibit 9, Letter, International Scholar Laureate Program (three pages); Exhibit 10, Letter, USC University of Southern California; and Exhibit 11, The National Society of Collegiate Scholars certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant through counsel states he participated in the Barstow Community College Accessibility Coordinator Center and Education Support Services (ACCESS) program and received a certification. He was inducted into the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society. He was selected to attend the International Scholar Laureate Program Delegation on Engineering & Technology in China or New Zealand. He was accepted into the University of Southern California for the spring semester of 2018. Finally, the applicant received recognition from The National Society of Collegiate Scholars for his commitment to the ideals of scholarship, leadership, and service. 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 although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's digital signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, he was wrongfully accused of child endangerment after word spread that his sixteen-year old son was highly-intoxicated at his house party. 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 his sixteen-year old son was not intoxicated at his house party. The applicant further contends, his chain of command moved forward with a baseless allegation and threatened him with a federal conviction and possible jail time and a bad conduct discharge. The available 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 applicant also contends, his overall quality of service greatly outweighs the alleged misconduct regarding the Article 134, UCMJ violation; and he earned a litany of impressive awards and decorations during his Army career. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident (s) that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant additionally contends, he is 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veteran Affairs for PTSD with major depressive disorder, social anxiety, alcohol abuse, and a history of TBI. The applicant submitted a VA rating decision that shows he was service connected for PTSD with a major depressive disorder, social anxiety, alcohol abuse, and history of TBI, also claimed as concussion, mental disorder, difficulty with concentration, suicide ideation, sleep disturbance, adjustment disorder, and insomnia is granted with an evaluation of 100 percent, effective 22 January 2016. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in the documents with the application. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 November 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 AR20190004878 1