1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 May 2019 b. Date Received: 20 May 2019 c. Previous Records Review: 20 June 2012, AR20120003810 (Reconsideration based on PTSD issues) d. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant did not receive the proper care for a Soldier in distress after a deployment. There are circumstances, which caused the applicant to make wrong decisions. During the 15-month deployment to Iraq, the applicant experienced nightmares. The applicant was one of the few percentage of Soldiers, who returned from Iraq with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Due to having a tremendous desire to see loved ones, the applicant's top priority was to do one's best to cover the mental scars. However, after some time, the changes became apparent to the applicant and family. The applicant tried fighting and covering it up repeatedly to avoid showing any weakness. The applicant also tried seeking help through psychologists, but leadership fought it due to the unit training for an upcoming second deployment. The applicant knew it was important but also felt the instability as a Soldier could cost one's life or the lives of others. The troubles caused more problems at home. So, with the career and personal life no longer doing well, and giving up on everything, the applicant pushed an NCO when the NCO would not stop harassing the applicant. Although the applicant was a troubled Soldier, the applicant still deserves receiving help and the benefits for serving 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 and FAP Involvement. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating 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 24 April 2020, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 July 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 June 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to his assigned place of duty at the prescribed time on several occasions. The applicant drove with a suspended license on 28 November 2008. The applicant failed to obey order on 10 December 2008. The applicant was arrested for domestic violence on 6 December 2008. The applicant was caught drinking underage on 6 December 2008. The applicant was AWOL from 12 February 2009 to 25 February 2009. The applicant drove on a suspended license on 24 February 2009. The applicant was AWOL from 2 June 2009 to 8 June 2009. 8 The applicant assaulted and was disrespectful towards SGT H. on 10 June 2009. The applicant was disrespectful to 1SG B. on 26 May 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 June 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 July 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 February 2007 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 4 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 March 2007 to 18 May 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; VUA; CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 11 September 2008, for wrongfully consuming alcohol while underage on 19 July 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $352, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Counseling statements for lacking what it takes to be a Soldier; being recommended for an involuntary separation; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; losing his military ID car; being AWOL; lying to an NCO; disobeying an NCO; disrespecting and disobeying his 1SG; driving on a suspended license; fighting with members of his unit; his temper getting out of control; underage drinking; being arrested for domestic violence; driving under the influence; and failing to follow instructions on numerous occasions. Report of Result of Trial and its associated documents reports the result of a summary court-martial, in that the applicant was found guilty of: Charge I, four specifications of violating Article 86, UCMJ, with three specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions on 26 May 2009, and 9 June 2009 x2, and specification 4, for being AWOL on 2 June 2009, and remaining absent until 8 June 2009. Charge II, four specifications for violating Article 91, UCMJ, for assaulting an NCO on two separated occasions on 10 June 2009 x 2, being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 10 June 2009, and disobeying his 1SG on 26 May 2009. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1 and 30 days of confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 22 days of AWOL (12 February 2009 to 25 February 2009, for 14 days), (6 April 2009 to 6 April 2009, for 1 day), and (2 June 2009 to 8 June 2009, for 7 days) / The applicant returned to his unit after each AWOL period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 April 2009, indicates the applicant being previously treated for an "Adjustment Disorder." Report of Medical History consisting of only page 2, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 12 May 2019, with self-authored statement; CIB Orders; and separation file. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or 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's contentions that his discharge was based on his PTSD that contributed to his poor behavior and not receiving proper care for, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct; however, there is no documentary evidence of the PTSD diagnosis by VA or a competent medical authority. However, if based on the available record, 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., documentary evidence of his PTSD diagnosis by a competent medical authority) for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to receive help and benefits for serving his country. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does 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 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 24 April 2020, 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 AR20190008552 1