1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 April 2019 b. Date Received: 29 April 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his NCOERs always reflected among the best and promote now. He was diagnosed with being bipolar, something that he struggled with for many years prior. He served three combat deployments in his eleven years in the US Army. He believes that if it had not been for bipolar he would still be in the Army. 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 depressed mood; Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol Use with unspecified alcohol use disorder; ADHD; MDD, recurrent, moderate. The applicant is 100% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Abuse. 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 2 September 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 September 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he violated Training and Command Doctrine Regulation 350-6, on several occasions by contacting students in training by social media. he sent Facebook messages to PV M.D., an initial entry training Soldier x3 (3 June 2016, 7 June 2016 and 9 June 2016); he made a false official statement to the Fort Gordon Criminal Investigation Division in reference to sending naked photos to PVT S.S-B., an initial entry Soldier (13 October 2016); and he sent naked photos via Facebook to PVT S.S-B., an initial entry Soldier (17 July 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 September 2016, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant also waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 October 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 November 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 years / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25L20, Cable System Installer / Maintainer / 11 years, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 September 2005 to 22 May 2007 / HD RA, 23 May 2007 to 2 November 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / SWA / Iraq, 1 April 2008 to 5 May 2009 / Afghanistan x2, 11 February 2011 to 9 February 2012 and 16 May 2014 to 26 February 2015 / Qatar, 8 March 2014 to 2 March 2015 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, ICM-2CS, ACM-3CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5, NATO MDL, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 10 June 2012 to 9 June 2013, Fully Capable 10 June 2013 to 7 February 2015, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2016, for violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully communicating with PFC S.S-B., an initial entry training Soldier, which was not required by the mission via Facebook (17 July 2015); and with intent to deceive, make to Special Agent S.M.R., an official statement, "No I did not send naked photos to PVT B." or word to that effect, which statement was totally false and was then known by him to be so false (13 October 2015); reduction to SGT / E-5, forfeiture of $1,573 pay for one month, extra duty for 45 days and an oral reprimand. The applicant received negative counseling for misconduct; being flagged and notification of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 June 2016, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. He denied history of symptoms of PTSD, mTBI, or history of sexual abuse at the time. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance at this time to warrant disposition through medical channels; therefore, he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative discharge. VA summary of benefits letter, dated 15 April 2019, relates the applicant had one or more service-connected disabilities and was granted a combined service-connected evaluation of 90 percent disabling. VA rated disabilities, undated, shows the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified bipolar disorder ((previously rated as adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood to include insomnia, also claimed as PTSD). He was granted an evaluation of 90 percent combined disabling rating, effective 21 October 2016. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); VA summary of benefits letter (two pages); and VA rated disabilities documentation; and a DD Form 214 (two pages). 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 14 Army allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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. 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 general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, his NCOERs always reflected among the best and promote now; and he served three combat deployments in his eleven years in the US Army. 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 further contends, he was diagnosed with being bipolar, something that he struggled with for many years prior. The applicant submitted a VA rated disabilities document, which revealed the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified bipolar disorder (previously rated as adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood to include insomnia, also claimed as PTSD). He was granted an evaluation of 50 percent disabling rating, and a combined rating of 90 percent effective 21 October 2016. The applicant also contends, he believes that if it had not been for bipolar he would still be in the Army. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 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 2 September 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 AR20190009126 3