1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 March 2019 b. Date Received: 10 June 2019 c. Representative: 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 pertinent part and in effect, the incident that led to separation resulted from dealing with marital issues, built-up anxiety for an upcoming deployment, and PTSD from observing a friend getting killed by an explosion and a vehicular manslaughter. The applicant was a young Soldier at the time and allowed frustration with an NCO to cause the applicant to yell at the NCO, and when the NCO put his hand on the applicant's shoulder, the applicant grabbed and twisted the NCO's wrist. No one else went through the treatment the applicant received due to race and ethnicity. The applicant takes full responsibility for actions. 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 tinnitus. The applicant is 10% service-connected from the VA. While the applicant has submitted a self-authored statement in support of his VA claim, this alone cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a PTSD diagnosis. In summary, the separation was proper and equitable. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 January 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 August 2007, the applicant received a CG Article for absenting himself from his unit between 3 August 2007 and 6 August 2007. On 7 December 2007, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial for absenting himself from his unit between 13 October 2007 and 14 November 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 7 January 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 January 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2007 / 3 years, 18 months b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 11 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 24 August 2007 for being AWOL on 3 August 2007, and remained absent until 6 August 2007. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Result of Trial with Charge Sheet indicates that the summary court-martial which convened on 7 December 2007, found the applicant guilty of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL on 13 October 2007, until 14 November 2007. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1 and 30 days of confinement. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 December 2007, provided no diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 37 days (AWOL on 3 August 2007 to 6 August 2007, for 4 days, and on 13 October 2007 to 14 November 2007 for 33 days) / The applicant returned to his unit after each AWOL period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 19 March 2019; Authorization to Disclose Personal Information to a Third Party, dated 16 March 2019; and two Statements in Support of Claim. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to 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 serious incidents 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 contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims stress at work and built-up anxiety due to upcoming deployment and marital issues resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his family stress and work were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved having PTSD from observing a friend getting killed by an explosion and a vehicular manslaughter, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record provided 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. 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 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 he was a young Soldier at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that he was harassed and discriminated by members of his chain of command due to his race and ethnicity; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 12 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 AR20190009211 4