1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 September 2019 b. Date Received: 10 October 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he suffered from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder while in the service and that he was discharged for reasons related this this condition. 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 Adjustment Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD. 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 6 November 2020, and by a 4-1 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 January 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form's 458, Charge Sheets which indicates on 21 January 2014, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Stealing a John Deere XUV 855D All-Terrain Vehicle, a motor vehicle, military property, of value of more than $10,000, the property of the US Army between 18 March 2013 and 11 July 2013; and Stealing a deer feeder and camera, of some value, the property of Scott Hatfield on 6 August 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 March 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 October 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / GED / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25Q3P, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator Maintainer / 14 years, 6 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 September 1999 to 31 March 2003 / HD RA, 1 April 2003 to 10 October 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Iraq (4 November 2004 to 8 November 2005 and 4 October 2006 to 15 December 2007) Afghanistan (10 February 2009 to 27 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACMV, ARCOM-4, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-4, NDSM, ACM- CS, ICM-CS-2, GWTSM, OSR-5, NATOMDL, NOPDR-2 g. Performance Ratings: May 2005 to February 2006, Among The Best 1 March 20076 to 30 September 2006, Among The Best 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, Among The Best 1 October 2007 to 31 May 2008, Fully Capable 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009, Among The Best 1 June 2009 to 30 April 2010, Among The Best 26 April 2010 to 20 December 2010, Marginal 21 December 2010 to 14 May 2011, Fully Capable 15 May 2011 to 14 May 2012, Among The Best 14 May 2012 to 13 May 2013, fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical documents submitted by the applicant make reference to him having problems with post-traumatic stress disorder, obstructive sleep apnea of adult, and depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and medical documentation. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 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 two offenses 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that he suffered from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder while in the service and that he was discharged for reasons related this this condition. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, although the applicant submitted post-service medical documents making reference to him having problems with post-traumatic stress disorder, obstructive sleep apnea of adult, and depression. 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. It should be noted, the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of a noncommissioned officer in the Army. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. It appears his record did not support the issuance of an honorable discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. 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 6 November 2020, and by a 4-1 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 / 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 AR20190014915 1