1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 May 2019 b. Date Received: 31 May 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant is diagnosed with PTSD and is now aware that eating was due to this PTSD, which led to a discharge for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant served in Iraq and was not treated for PTSD, which was the reason for self-soothing with eating. The applicant believes the discharge was done quickly and with many actions not processed correctly. The applicant was not given reasonable time to correct any deficiencies and a month after being counseled, was discharged without ever being able to partake in remedial PT or being offered any rehabilitative efforts. The applicant states, was never transferred with at least two months of duty in each unit; though this can be waived the circumstances were never met for such a waiver. The applicant was not disruptive and had no disciplinary issues aside from APFT failure. The applicant never drank, or had a DUI, never participated in illegal drug use of any kind, which can be confirmed by the multiple unit drug tests. The applicant never forged or altered his records nor commit fraud of any kind to enter the military. The applicant exited the military without so much as a mental examination and now knows why the applicant could not succeed at the time in the military. The applicant needed help from the country, the country fought for, but is just now receiving help. The applicant states an upgrade because a general (under honorable conditions) carries a stigma, which deprives the applicant of many benefits. The applicant believes when there is a doubt, it should be resolved in favor of an honorable discharge and an honorable discharge is required, if the government introduces limited use evidence. Furthermore, a Chapter 13, usually does not warrant this type of characterization of service and usually is used for people who have had non- judicial punishments, such as an Article 15. The applicant states, has not had an Article 15 in the military nor any major disciplinary issues. 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 70% service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 August 2020, and by a 4-1 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 November 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He failed five consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 November 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 November 2009 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2006 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources / 3 years, 5 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (13 January 2007 - 29 March 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Four Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards, reflect the applicant failed record APFTs on 25 July, 8 August, 9 September and 22 October 2008 and on 29 April and 25 September 2009. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing the APFT and failing to achieve body fat standards. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 September 2009, 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: Adjustment Disorder 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Disability Compensation letter; DA Form 638. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 and a narrative reason change. 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 he was suffering from undiagnosed with PTSD, which was undiagnosed during his service and affected his behavior, which led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, the evidence of the record reflects the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions, but the applicant failed to respond to those efforts. The applicant contends he was not given a mental examination before his separation and that when Limited Use information is introduced in the separation process, an honorable discharge is warranted. However, 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 is commensurate with his overall service record. Further, evidence of the record reflects the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation on 30 September 2009, wherein he was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. Moreover, the separation packet does not contain any evidence of Limited Use information. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 21 August 2020, and by a 4-1 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 AR20190007688 1