1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 April 2019 b. Date Received: 6 May 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant should have been retained on active duty until the applicant qualified for retirement at 20 years of service, rather than after serving 19 years and 8 months. The guidance by the Under Secretary of Defense; the applicant's exemplarily military service prior to last deployment, including five deployments to high conflict combat zones during over 19 years of service; PTSD diagnosis; and the testimony of the doctor stating the applicant's PTSD was the underlying cause of misconduct, all support granting the applicant's request for an upgrade. The applicant's isolated incidents of misconduct should not overshadow the years of distinguished service, particularly given PTSD diagnosis. The administrative separation should also be vacated and granted full retirement benefits as if the applicant had been allowed to continue serving until retirement, as mandated by statute. In the alternative, discharge should be re-characterized from an administrative separation to a medical separation. 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/with anxiety and depressed mood/with depressed mood/with mixed emotional features; Chronic PTSD; Post-concussion Syndrome. The applicant is not 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 19 August 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: Secretarial Authority / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3 / JFF / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 January 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 January 2009 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 13B40, Cannon Crewmember / 19 years, 4 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (20 November 1996 to 20 May 1999) / HD RA (21 May 1999 to 26 June 2002) / HD RA (27 June 2001 to 23 December 2005) / HD RA (24 December 2005 to 20 January 2009) / HD (NIF) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA, Bosnia / Bosnia15 August 2000 to 5 January 2001), Iraq (12 April 2003 to 20 July 2004), (20 November 2005 to 31 October 2006), Afghanistan (30 June 2008 to 12 June 2009), Iraq (25 February 2010 to 3 February 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: PH; MSM; JSCOM-2; ARCOM-V DEV; ARCOM-5; JSAM; AAM-5; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM-CS; ICM-4CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; KCM-BSS; NCOPDR-3; ASR; OSR-6; NATO MDL-2; CAB; JMUA; ASUA; MUC; USA PUC g. Performance Ratings: Eight NCOERs rendered during period of service under current view, either as "Among the Best" (AB) or "Fully Capable" (FC): 1 March 2008 thru 28 February 2009, AB 1 March 2009 thru 25 November 2009, AB 26 November 2009 thru 25 November 2010, AB 26 November 2010 thru 1 June 2011, AB 2 June 2011 thru 1 June 2012, FC 1 June 2012 thru 31 May 2013, FC 1 June 2013 thru 31 May 2014, FC 31 May 2014 thru 1 June 2015, FC h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and its associated documents, dated 28 August 2013, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for claiming during online chat sessions to have engaged in sexual contact with a minor on more than one occasions and with more than one victim, while being aware that such act was criminal, and admitting to possessing child pornography. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 20 June 2014, and VA letter (undated) indicate the applicant was proposed to be assigned 50 percent for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 22 April 2019, with counsel-authored brief; ERB; JSCM certificate; five ARCOM certificates; PH certificate; MSM certificate; five AAM certificates; five Service School Academic Evaluation Reports; three NCOERs; CID Report; applicant's sworn statement; Informal PEB Proceedings; Findings and Recommendations of administrative separation board; FLAG action; Request and Authority for Leave; counsel-authored brief, dated 27 January 2015; applicant statement, dated 20 September 2013; Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 20 June 2014, and VA letter (undated); discharge Orders, dated 29 July 2014; six separate Disability Benefits Questionnaires for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus, Initial PTSD, Radiology Interpretation, Elbow and Forearm, Ankle, and Back; MEB Proceedings; Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist; Official QMP Notification; Congressional correspondence; separation authority decision memorandum; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-3 provides secretarial plenary authority and it is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Separation under this paragraph may be voluntary or involuntary. Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier being separated will be awarded a character of service of honorable, general under honorable conditions or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. No Soldier will be awarded a characterization of service under honorable conditions under this Chapter unless the Soldier is notified, using the notification procedure, of the specific factors in his/her service record that warrant such a characterization. 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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully examining the applicant's available military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to make a determination upon the quality of the applicant's service and the merit of his issues. The applicant's record is void of the documentary evidence 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 digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3, by reason of "Secretarial Authority," with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. 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., the complete 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. 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 status. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because he should have been retained on active duty as mandated by statute, until he was fully qualified for retirement at 20 years of service, as mandated by statute. However, 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's counsel statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved being diagnosed with PTSD, were carefully considered. 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. The applicant also contends he should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant contends his discharge was based on isolated incidents of misconduct. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant requests his administrative separation should be changed to a medical separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 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 AR20190009056 5