1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 October 2019 b. Date Received: 2 October 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 requests his DD Form 214, block 18, be amended. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because he did not realize how much PTSD played into the misconduct, which led to his Other Than Honorable discharge. The applicant attempted suicide by cop, but he never intended to harm anyone other than himself. The applicant states his PTSD was a substantial contributing factor and he had all the symptoms of PTSD. He was diagnosed with chronic PTSD on active duty, but it was not considered as a mitigating factor, which should have been considered. The applicant believes that if PTSD could be considered in mitigation, the Board might agree that a discharge characterization of Other Than Honorable was too harsh for the circumstances of his case. The applicant provides an allied legal brief, which further details his contentions. 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 Acute Reaction to Stress/with mixed disorders; Alcohol Abuse; Alcohol Dependence; Chronic PTSD; Major Depressive Disorder, severe. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant has 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 23 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (diagnosis of PTSD and severe MDD), and prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 6 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 12 January 2014, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation Article 86, UCMJ: Specification 1: In that the applicant did, at or near Joint Base Lewis -McChord, on or about 28 December 2014, commit an assault upon Staff Sergeant B. R. by waving a dangerous weapon likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, at him, to wit: a loaded firearm. Specification 2: In that the applicant did, at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, on or about 28 December 2014, commit an assault upon Investigator M. C. by waving a dangerous weapon likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, at him, to wit: a loaded firearm. Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: The Specification: In that the applicant did, at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, on or about 28 December 2014, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 6-2., Joint Base Lewis-McChord Regulation 190-11, dated 21 July 2014, by wrongfully storing a privately owned weapon in an unauthorized location. Charge III: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ: The Specification: In that the applicant did, at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, on or about 1 December 2014, wrongfully possess some testosterone cypionate, a schedule III controlled substance. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 8 September 2016 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 15 September 2016 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 December 2013 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1V, Infantryman / 5 years, 1 month, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 August 2011 - 19 December 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Based on evidence of the record, the applicant was awarded the NATOMDL for the period 20 August 2013 to 17 December 2013; and, it appears he served in Afghanistan. f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial, dated 21 May 2015, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation of Article 128, UCMJ, for: Specification 1: Assault, Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Specification 2: Assault, Not Guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge II: Violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for failure to obey a lawful general regulation. Not Guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge III: Violation of Article 120, UCMJ, for wrongfully possessing some Testosterone Cypionate. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 September 2016, 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. United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Memorandum Opinion, dated 22 June 2016, opined the facts lead the court to conclude the military judge erred by not inquiring into the accused's possible lack of mental responsibility defense which was reasonably raised by the evidence - and by accepting the appellant's plea without the accused affirmatively negating this potential defense. The court concluded after consideration of the entire record, the finding of guilty and the sentence were set aside. A rehearing was authorized. All rights, privileges, and property, of which the appellant had been deprived by virtue of the findings and sentence were hereby set aside by this decision, and were ordered restored. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his active duty medical record, dated 24 March 2015, which reflects the applicant had been treated for: Alcohol dependence, in remission; Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Depression severe. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; three diplomas; certificate of graduation; five Certificates of Training; copy of Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade web page; FY14-16 Ranger School Tends; NATOMDL certificate; Permanent Orders: 275-8; EIB certificate; Certificate of Completion; photograph; two Certificates of Achievement; AAM certificate; medical record; Center for Compassionate Care Innovation Fact Sheet; Continuation of DD Form 457; DD Form 4/1; DD Form 4/2; Date Calculator. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 requests his DD Form 214, block 18, be amended. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends his DD Form 214, block 18, should be amended. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD; 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 shows that on 29 September 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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 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 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 23 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (diagnosis of PTSD and severe MDD), and prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20190014822 6