1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 August 2019 b. Date Received: 10 October 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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to get back his veteran status and serve either in the Army National Guard or on Active Duty until he is eligible to retire. The applicant contends that he had no one to speak on his behalf while attending a military school, he failed a urine test and was treated like a piece of garbage, he had mental issues dating back to his childhood and it escalated throughout his adulthood, to include PTSD. The applicant contends that he had ADD his entire life and he did not realize it until recently. The school threatened him with a court-martial, he got scared and took the chapter discharge. He contends that from the time he joined the military in 1991, he struggled mentally, beginning with his ASVAB test, which barely got him in the service and through his career. He received his first DWI in 1993, and it just got out of control after that. At no time did anyone want to help him. He believes he was an outstanding field Soldier, but struggled in garrison. He has been on many deployments and training exercises. He volunteered to deploy to Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and a long tour to South Korea. He always put his Soldier first. When work was over his struggles were a nightmare. He loved his country and deserve to not be ashamed of his career. He paid his debt to society and the military. He has no criminal record, he paid back an outstanding military bill amounting to 24k without missing a payment while unemployed for a few months. His medication has turned his life around. 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 applicant is not service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with ADHD. 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 25 September 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 February 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 3 January 2007, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by Court-Martial, under AR 635-200, Chapter 10 for violation of Article 112, UCMJ, one specification and violation of Article 111, UCMJ, one specification. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 January 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 October 2005 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 /11B10, Infantryman / 15 years, 10 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 April 1991 to 13 March 1994 / HD RA, 14 March 1994 to 16 March 1997 / HD RA, 17 March 1997 to 25 January 2001 / HD RA, 26 January 2001 to 25 October 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA, Haiti / Afghanistan (1 August 2003 to 1 August 2005) and Iraq (1 August 2005 to 1 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-4, AAM-4, AGCM-4, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: June 2005 to May 2006, Fully Capable 1 June 2006 to 1 October 2006, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Document dated 19 December 2019, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Muskogee Regional Office, with hand written information indicating the applicant has a diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. Symptoms had decreased his ability to concentrate, decreased focus, decreased attention to detail. Adderall 30 mg twice daily. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; debt to government; separation orders; enlisted record brief (ERB); honorable discharge certificates, award orders, award certificates, certificates of training/achievements; separation documents; service school academic evaluation report; enlistment documents; statement of medical examination and duty status; administrative reprimand; divorce documents; Military Police Report; document from the Department of Veterans Affairs Muskogee Regional Office, and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The applicant seeks relief contending that he had no one to speak on his behalf while attending a military school, he failed a urine test and was treated like a piece of garbage, he had mental issues dating back to his childhood and it escalated throughout his adulthood, to include PTSD. The applicant contends that he had ADD his entire life and he did not realize it until recently. The school threatened him with a court-martial, he got scared and took the chapter discharge. He contends that from the time he joined the military in 1991, he struggled mentally, beginning with his ASVAB test, which barely got him in the service and through his career. He received his first DWI in 1993, and it just got out of control after that. At no time did anyone want to help him. He believes he was an outstanding field Soldier, but struggled in garrison. He has been on many deployments and training exercises. He volunteered to deploy to Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and a long tour to South Korea. He always put his Soldier first. When work was over his struggles were a nightmare. He loved his country and deserve to not be ashamed of his career. He paid his debt to society and the military. He has no criminal record, he paid back an outstanding military bill amounting to 24k without missing a payment while unemployed for a few months. His medication has turned his life around. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to get back his veteran status and serve either in the Army National Guard or on Active Duty until he is eligible to retire. However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist. Based on the available record, it appears 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 25 September 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 / 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 AR20190014945 4