1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 June 2019 b. Date Received: 2 August 2019 c. Counsel: None 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, during his enlistment, various events occurred to initiate and further contribute to his post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms upon his return from Iraq. The applicant believes his discharge should be considered honorable on multiple counts. The everyday lingering health concerns from his time serving in Iraq can be directly linked to proficient and problem free service during his enlistment. The applicant was deployed from March 2002 to October 2002 and from January 2003 to March 2003 in Kuwait and from March 2003 to August 2003 in Iraq. During this time, he was Operationally Connected to TF 2-69 AR and delivered impeccable service, actively attending his various assignments, which is reflected by the awards he earned during that time. The applicant believes his service was honorable because he trained for a particular job as a forward observer, and he accomplished that job in active combat honorably. The applicant was always qualified with his weapon, passed all PT tests, and never received any negative statements in regard to his interpersonal interactions or level of commitment during his time of service. When he redeployed from Iraq in August of 2003, he started having trouble falling asleep or sleeping for more than 4 hours consecutively and constantly suffered from bad dreams. He was plagued with frequent dull to throbbing headaches, and often felt generally unrested. As a result, he retreated into a dark place of depression and avoidance. The applicant did not want to encounter triggering smells, such as exhaust fumes from the tanks, having to clean weapons or confront the realities of his worsening anxiety. The applicant failed to report to work on two occasions as a result of his developing health conditions. At that point, his 1SG began to target him and recommended to the commander that the applicant be given an Article 15. The applicant was endured humiliating conditions by having to sleep on a cot by the CQ desk for multiple weeks. During that time, his stress and anxiety levels of returning from combat were exacerbated by his degrading treatment. The applicant believed he was being treated like a criminal, instead getting the mental health treatment he desperately needed after returning from war. The applicant was sent to the Naval Air Station, Pensacola Brig for 30 days as imposed punishment from the Article 15, where his mental health and well-being continued to deteriorate. After being released from the brig, his unit started the process to discharge him from the military instead of trying to rehabilitate him. 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 no mitigating diagnoses. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Reaction. 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 November 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 July 2004 (initial) / 16 August 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Numerous FTRs, Breaking Restriction and AWOL. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (initial) / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (subsequent) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 August 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 25 August 2004, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 21 October 2004, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 October 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 April 2000 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 4 years, 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, AFEM, ASR / The applicant's service record reflects he was awarded the NDSM, however, the award is not reflected on his DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 13 March 2002, for being AWOL (between 31 January and 11 February 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 21 October 2003, for malingering by failing to be at proper place of duty (FTR) and not being where he reported he was at a specific time (MACH), or where he was directed to be (TMC) and his place of duty on 17 October 2003. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 11 days. FG Article 15, dated 27 April 2004, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on four occasions (between 9 March and 1 April 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, undated, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 27 April 2004, was vacated because the applicant broke restriction on 2 May 2004. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 June 2004, 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. Charge Sheet, dated 16 July 2004, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Six specifications of violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority absent himself from his unit in desertion: 2 May 2004; 14 May 2004; 15 May 2004; 16 May 2004; 17 May 2004; and, 18 May 2004. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, for having been restricted to the limits of Kelly Hill, did on or about 17 May 2004, break said restriction. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 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 14-12b 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 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 military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD. However, the service record contains 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. The applicant contends his first sergeant began to target him. However, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends he was discharged instead of being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a two combat tours. 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. Soldiers processed for misconduct under this provisions will be assigned a Narrative Reason for Separation as Pattern of Misconduct. Notwithstanding the administrative error, 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 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 AR20190011010 1