1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 May 2019 b. Date Received: 20 June 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over five years of service with no other adverse action. The single incident that led to his discharge was unrelated to his service in the Army, but being that he was an officer, he was asked to resign as a result of the incident. Prior to his discharge, he served five and half years in the Army as an Officer. The applicant had a great career in the Army. He had never received negative feedback or negative counseling from any or his superiors. He was the recipient of many awards during his service and served honorably. The applicant was involved in a fist fight with two other persons wherein he was charged with a misdemeanor because of this incident which was caused by is PTS. The incident was caused by his undiagnosed PTS and would have never happened, if he had not experienced the episode of PTS. The applicant states, he experienced what his psychologist called a "flashback and/or dissociation." The applicant felt disconnected from his surroundings and temporarily lost touch with what was going on around him. He acted violently due to the nature of the flashback. It was like what happens when one daydreams and has no memories of the incident while they are in the dream state. These events led to his discharge. The applicant believes his service was honorable because he served the country well and followed every command and order given. He was an excellent Soldier and an awarded leader, who was passionate about his country and his position. The applicant took pride in what he did and what he represented. If it had not been for the one single flashback episode that caused the incident, he would still be serving honorably today. The applicant states, he is a respected husband, father and productive member of his community. He is very involved with his church where he serves. He has two daughters and a wife that he loves and spend all of his free time with. The applicant also holds a high level job with a company and is doing very well. 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 PTSD. The applicant is 70% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with MDD. 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 28 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (5) and (8) and 4-2c(5) misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming an officer, and for receiving an administrative reprimand that was filed in his Official Military Performance File (OMPF) in accordance with AR 600-37. The actions were based upon the following specific reasons for elimination: on 22 June 2014, after consuming alcohol throughout the day, he was involved in a verbal altercation with an unknown male in an alley outside of a bar in Nashville, TN. Later in the evening, the applicant entered a nearby condominium and assaulted a woman by hitting her in the head with a cardboard box, punching her in the head with his fists, and slamming her head into the wall and floor. When two other residents attempted to intercede and prevent the applicant from causing further harm to the woman, the applicant became combative and engaged in a physical altercation with them, which resulted in damage to the apartment complex and his arrest by local law enforcement officials. The applicant was reprimanded for this misconduct in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 September 2014 that was filed in his AMHRR. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 11 March 2014, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for a conditional resignation. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) On 10 March 2015, the DASA (RB), rejected the applicant's conditional resignation and returned the case to a Board of Inquiry. On 27 March 2015, the applicant submitted an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. On 1 April 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's unconditional resignation, and that the applicant be eliminated from the Army. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 18 December 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 22 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 13A 2B Field Artillery, General / 5 years, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: CDT, 28 August 2007 - 22 February 2010 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (28 August 2012 - 4 May 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, BSM, AAM-2, ASUA, NDSM, GOWTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 30 November 2010 - 20 July 2011 / Best Qualified 20 July 2011 - 10 November 2011 / Fully Qualified 11 November 2011 - 10 November 2012 / Best Qualified 11 November 2012 - 23 July 2013 / Best Qualified 24 July 2013 - 23 July 2014 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Metropolitan Police Department, Nashville Tennessee, Incident Report, dated 23 June 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with two counts of assault and one count each of aggravated assault and vandalism for pulling a fire alarm in a building, setting off sprinklers. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 8 September 2014, for conduct unbecoming an officer, damaging private property, and aggravated assault. On 22 June 2014, after consuming alcohol throughout the day, the applicant was involved in a verbal altercation with an unknown male in an alley outside of a bar in Nashville, TN. Later in the evening, he entered a nearby condominium and assaulted a woman by hitting her in the head with a cardboard box, punching her in the head with his fists, and slamming her head into the wall and floor. When two other residents attempted to intercede and prevent him from causing further harm to the woman, he became combative and engaged in a physical altercation with them, which resulted in damage to the apartment complex and his arrest by local law enforcement officials. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2014, 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 had been evaluated to determine if clinically significant symptoms of PTSD or TBI were present. Results were negative. Clinically significant symptoms did not appear to have contributed to the applicant's military inefficiency or unsuitability. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, undated, reflects the applicant self- referred in the ASAP. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a Nashville Vet Center, Veteran Information report, dated 27 December 2018, which reflects he was assessed on 20 March 2018 with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two third party letters; VA Administrative Decision letter; AAM certificate; BSM; certificate; DA Form 67-10-1; Acceptance of Resignation order; DASA (RB) decision letter; Notification of discharge; Nashville Vet Center report. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is a respected husband, father and productive member of his community. He is very involved with his church where he serves. H has two daughters and a wife that he loves and spend all of his free time with. The applicant also holds a high level job with a company and is doing very well. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." "Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 honorable. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends that he was suffering from undiagnosed PTS, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applciant provided evidence that he has been assessed with PTSD post-service and a third party letter to support his contention. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record reflects that on 30 October 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant had been evaluated to determine if clinically significant symptoms of PTSD or TBI were present. Results were negative. Clinically significant symptoms did not appear to have contributed to the applicant's military inefficiency or unsuitability. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Officers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant's performance. The author recognized his good performance after leaving the Army; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 28 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 AR20190009541 6