1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 June 2019 b. Date Received: 20 June 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade will allow the applicant to obtain VA benefits. The applicant is experiencing hardships due to being disabled from PTSD as a direct result of the trauma the applicant experienced while serving on active duty. During military service, the applicant had come under sub-standard leadership and instead of receiving the help the applicant so desperately needed and deserved, was instead discharged under "Other than Honorable" conditions after seven years of meritorious service to the country. The applicant states: currently barred from medical care for PTSD and is unable to file a claim for VA service connected compensation. This issue has severely affected the applicant and family's lives and believes the applicant deserves to have the military benefits. The applicant served the country and was involved in a very serious MVA and was not afforded the proper treatment by senior leadership. Several fellow Soldiers experienced similar situations while serving under the same command, and were forced to file complaints with the IG to resolve similar conflicts. The applicant states, deserves treatment for TBI and PTSD injuries incurred while on active duty and that were exacerbated by military service. The applicant deserves to have discharge upgraded and hold head high among colleagues because the applicant stood ready to engage the enemy and was a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. The applicant states, the applicant is an American Soldier and no bad leader will ever take that away requests the Board right this wrong. 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 there are no BH conditions listed in AHLTA. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 September 2010 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: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 June 2004 / 8 years (USAR). b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / Some College / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 6 years, 2 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 30 June 2004 - 10 September 2004 / NIF (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 5 February 2009, reflects the applicant tested positive for a controlled substance, during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 25 January 2009. Letter of Instruction, Unexcused Absence, dated 3 August 2007, reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following period(s): 1 - 28 July 2007, 2 - 28 July 2007, 1 - 29 July 2007, 2 - 29 July 2007. Unless the absences indicated were excused, the applicant would have accrued 12 unexcused absences within a one year period. Letter of Instruction, Unexcused Absence, dated 24 August 2008, reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following period(s): 1 - 26 July 2008, 2 - 26 July 2008. Unless the absences indicated were excused, the applicant would have accrued 13 unexcused absences within a one year period. Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 16 February 2009, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards for the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Operation Level by failing the written test and the retest. Achievement of Hazardous Materials Incident Response Operation Level is a requirement for graduating the Mass Casualty Decontamination Course. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his Wilmington Treatment Center medical treatment records, dated 4 November 2013, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Alcohol abuse; Depression; and, Anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Certificate of Achievement; Discharge Orders, Vouchers; DA Form 700-R, Active Duty Report; Chronological Statement of Retirement Points; Enlistment Documents; Title 10 Authority Documents; Individual Active Duty Certificate of Performance; Pre-Nursing Certificate; College Transcripts; DA Form 21715; Economic Hardship Deferment Worksheet; South Carolina Department of Social Services Family Independence and Food Stamps Programs document; USARGET report; Emergency Department medical treatment report; three DA Forms 4856; two Letters of Instruction; Award of the ARCAM; Change in Student (memo) with allied documents; Medical Review Officer for Drug Result; DD Form 2624; Certificate of Achievement; 11 photographs; Victim's Rights Information Sheet; State of South Carolina, Checklist with allied documents; Certificate of Completion; Petition for Order of Protection with allied documents; State of South Carolina Family Court documents; Wilmington Treatment Center medical treatment records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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 honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. However, the service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army Reserve. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted discharge Orders 10-246-00033, dated 31 August 2010. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant's contentions about having poor leadership, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends he has been diagnosed with PTSD post-service. However, fact the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD does not support a conclusion that this condition rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits through the use medical treatment. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical treatment, 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 applicant contends that he had good service. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the 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. 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 that 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 AR20190009549 1