ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE: 21 September 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200005179 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: the following: 
. 
a medical or regular retirement 

. 
an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge 


APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

. 
Applicant’s Statement 

. 
Counsel’s Statement 

. 
military service records 


FACTS: 
1. The applicant states: 
a. 
He was recommended for administrative separation by U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Enlisted Command, while he was pending an MEB and retirement. He was diagnosed with severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that is service-connected. The discharge recommendation is unfair, procedurally defective, inequitable, against military policy, and substantively in error. He should be retired and allowed to proceed with his ongoing MEB. He had been discharged from the Army since 19 June 2020, approximately 7 months. During this time, he has been unemployed and unable to find work, due to the numerous mental health conditions he suffers from that prevent him from having any kind of public employment and interactions with other people. Unfortunately, he has to take multiple psychiatric medications daily just to be able to deal and cope with normal life issues that arise. 

b. 
He currently has a Social Security Disability Claim pending, due to his inability to work in regards to his PTSD diagnosis and multiple mental health conditions and symptoms that interfere with his ability to function and lead a normal life. Upon his discharge, he immediately made an attempt for employment, but his discharge prevented any employer from hiring him as it is difficult to explain he was 


administratively separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge after serving over 20 Years, 4 months, and 24 days of active Federal service. On 25 July 2019, an Administrative Separation Board was conducted and concluded with a recommendation of an UOTHC discharge. He strongly believes, as does his attorney and previous mental health providers, that he did not receive consideration of his PTSD diagnosis and other mental health conditions that include Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Acute Stress Reaction. 
c. 
During the separation board process, he underwent a command directed mental health evaluation and it was determine he had a diagnosis of PTSD and the effects of his medical conditions may have been a mitigating factor in the alleged behavior. The USAREC Prosecutor did not like this diagnosis and reached out to the Chief of Behavioral Health and asked them to amend the DA 3822. When the request was denied the prosecutor asked that another provider of higher rank and education to conduct the evaluation. The Chief of Behavioral Health obliged and on 10 July 2019, another command directed evaluation was conducted by Dr. B_., and he concluded he did have a diagnosis of PTSD and that the effects of his medical conditions may have been a mitigating factor in the alleged behavior and that his DA 3822 superseded all others. His attorney even reached out to the General Commander (GC), USAREC, prior to the board convening and requested a short delay to enable him to receive treatment. The request was adamantly denied and concluded that the board would happen no matter what. 

d. 
This resulted in him filing a Congressional request for assistance as he felt his command did not care about his well-being. Behavioral Health had been aware of multiple issues and instances that could have resulted in the loss of life or severe injury as a result of his PTSD symptoms that his command did not care about. Unfortunately, the separation board panel did not take into account or give any consideration to his PTSD diagnosis or the effects that it had on his behavior as a result of the multiple deployments in combat environments as an Army medic. There are things he has witnessed and performed within his 20-year military career that have taken a toll on his mental health well-being and life overall that would cause anyone to have decreased mental capacity and abilities. The panel unfortunately did not want to hear anything that either him or his attorney had to say during the entire 3-day process as it was displayed by their actions and attitude for the audience present to see. 

e. 
A first sergeant even pulled him aside, apologized to him, and stated the board had to be predetermined before he walked in which was appalling in itself. The actions of the command and prosecutor during this entire process exacerbated his PTSD symptoms, stress, anxiety, and depression to the point that he wanted to commit suicide on a daily basis. The only thing that kept him going at the time was the fact that his wife had just become pregnant. His mental health would once again take a toll though as the 


USAREC Prosecutor, after the Administrative Separation Board had convened, reached out to Dr. R_., a provider at the IDES (MEB) section, and asked her to review his mental health records from Behavioral Health and state that he did not have PTSD. Yet, he had never seen this provider before in any capacity. This was also odd to him as the 
USAREC Prosecutor's husband was an attorney in the provider's office. 
f. The provider reviewed his mental health record and the two command directed mental health evaluations and prepared a two sentence memo on 24 September 2019 for the USAREC CG stating that he did not have PTSD according to her. This was then used as a tool by the USAREC Prosecutor (as they had a provider willing to override Behavioral Health on Fort Knox, KY) because they were not satisfied with the diagnosis of PTSD) and Dr. R_’s statement was then added and is the first document in the Separation Board Packet that was sent forward, setting a precedent that he did not have PTSD or any effects for anyone that reviews it. Dr. R_’s actions and lack of integrity for reviewing his mental health record without his consent and overriding his mental health provider’s diagnosis without ever seeing him in a medical capacity resulted in him filing a complaint against her with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, which was substantiated as a HIPAA Violation. 
g. 
It is his personal belief that after having served over 20 years of military service, multiple deployments in support of my country's freedom, and having saved hundreds of lives, he is being cast aside in order to secure a "win" after a nearly 4 year investigation and failed court martial attempt. He believes, as does his attorney, that there are procedural defects within his case that should be addressed as he did not receive consideration for his PTSD diagnosis and the effects that it has on him, his life, and his behavior. He also believes, as it is evident, that the command did everything possible to circumvent the system that was put into place to protect Soldiers. He has had direct exposure to hundreds of severe trauma casualties to include treatment and evacuation; direct exposure to the loss of life of U.S. Soldiers and Coalition Forces and the aftermath effects of the events (to include having lost friends and Soldiers); direct and indirect fire; RPG and mortar attacks; VBIED's and Suicide Bombers; burned body parts and cadaver bags at times; and have been involved in the triage, treatment, and evacuation in numerous MASCAL events. 

h. 
These instances are just a fraction of the root causes of his PTSD. As a result of these deployments I experience frequent nightmares that prevent any sort of quality sleep (nightmare medication isn't helping at this time); he experiences frequent flashbacks as if he is reliving the moment; he experiences recurrent unwanted memories of the events; he avoids places; he avoids anything associated with events that trigger symptoms to include people; he experiences heightened reactions to include his heart racing, sweating, and nausea especially from certain smells (body bags and body parts burning); he has depressed moods; difficulty getting along with others; he avoids crowds and gatherings; he is constantly on guard and hyper vigilant, has 


firearms within an arm's reach, and he is constantly checking the locks and security in his house; he had constant irritability and anger and he is prone aggressive outbursts; he has extreme difficulty interacting with others to include close family and friends. He no longer travels and has difficulty driving and being in traffic. He suffers from memory loss, decreased attention span, and concentration and has difficulty making decisions. He has negative thoughts about himself and people, feels hopeless about the future, and has difficulty maintaining relationships even with close friends and family; he feels detached from everyone to include family and friends. 
i. He believes there is a procedural error regarding his separation board proceedings. Although he cannot change the findings, he firmly believes the board and higher levels did not consider all of his medical and mental health records, his mental health diagnoses to include PTSD and the effects it had on his behavior, mental emotional, and physical well-being. He humbly request an upgrade of his discharge to honorable or that he either be granted his retirement for over 20 years of service, and/or approval of his MEB. 
2. 
Counsel requests, the applicant be allowed to retire and receive an MEB for PTSD and states the applicant received an UOTHC discharge and he formerly had an approved retirement through the Department of the Army. His level of offense did not equal the finding and approval of his UOTHC discharge. He is being treated unfairly. Other Soldiers in his same position have been allowed to retire. The applicant is requesting the same consideration. He has honorably served his country for over 20 years and deserves to be honored for that accomplishment. 

3. 
Review of the applicant’s service records show: 


a. 
He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 January 2000 and he held military occupational specialty 68W (Health Care Specialist). He reenlisted in the RA on 22 September 2002. He served continuously on active duty through several reenlistments. He was promoted to E-7 on an unknown date. He served in: 

. 
Egypt from 8 June 2004 to 11 June 2005 

. 
Iraq from 4 October 2006 to 21 November 2007 

. 
Alaska from 12 July 2005 to 28 May 2008 

. 
Italy from 10 September 2009 to 14 September 2011 



b. 
On 2 November 2018, he was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for attempting to obstruct justice in the case against him by manipulating his superior commissioned officer (NCO) through false statements about a no contact order. Additionally, there was probable cause to believe he committed the following offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, stalking, indecent recording and broadcasting, assault consummated by a battery, communication of a threat, and failure 


to obey a lawful order. The reprimand stated as an NCO and a leader, he was expected to conduct himself professionally at all times in accordance with the law, regulations, and the Army values. His behavior has undermined the confidence and trust bestowed upon him as a Soldier in the US Army. 
c. 
On 6 November 2018, he acknowledged receipt of the reprimand and elected to submit a rebuttal. 

d. 
On 20 December 2018, the applicant’s brigade commander recommended the reprimand be permanently filed in the applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF). On the same date, the applicant elected not to submit matter in response to the reprimand. 


e. In a DA Form 7652 (Disability Evaluation System Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement), dated 2 January 2019, the applicant’s company commander stated the applicant was not able to retain or perform his current MOS with the medical conditions he was suffering from at that time. He was in a medical retention determination point and unable to maintain fitness standards for both retention and MOS. 
f. On 19 January 2019, the GC directed the reprimand be permanently filed in the 
applicant’s OMPF.  
g. 
On 5 May 2019, he underwent a misconduct administrative separation evaluation. The examining licensed psychologist stated the applicant was not cleared for disciplinary separation and he met the PTSD exclusionary criteria. Treatment of his condition was not expected to improve his condition to a point where he would be capable to deploy in the future. He would need to be placed in the medical board system for discharge. 

h. 
On 10 July 2019, he underwent a second misconduct administrative separation evaluation. The examining licensed psychologist stated the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). He would be referred to the DES and the appropriate e-profile had been initiated. The effects of his condition may had been a mitigating factor in the alleged behavior. 

i. 
In a Request for Suspension of Retirement Orders memorandum, dated 31 July 2019, the applicant’s brigade commander stated on 25 July 2019, an administrative separation board convened pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations, paragraph 14-12(c). The board voted to separate the applicant from the Army with an UOTHC discharge for Commission of a Serious 


Offense. The results of those proceedings would be forwarded to the GC for a 
recommendation and further action. As such, the applicant’s retirement orders should 
be suspended until the proper authority reviewed his case. 
j. 
In a Memorandum for Record, dated 224 September 2019, the Integrated DES Psychiatrist stated the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by a social worker on 5 February 2019 (prior to the psychiatric Compensation and Pension (C&P) and MEB evaluations). He did not meet criteria for the condition at the time of the MEB and psychiatric C&P evaluations, as was addressed in both of these documents. He also did not currently meet criteria for PTSD. 

k. 
On 13 October 2019, the GC, he had reviewed the applicant’s MEB, and he did not find the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation and the circumstances of the applicant’s case did not warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. 

l. 
Subsequently, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed the issuance of an UOTHC discharge and reduction to E-1. 

m. 
Orders Number 161-0166, dated 9 June 2020, reassigned him for separation processing, with a report date of 19 June 2020. 


n. In an MEB memorandum, dated 10 June 2020, the applicant’s MEB counsel 
requested the Army follow the ARs and an analysis be made as to whether or not the applicant’s mental health condition affected the behavior upon which the administrative separation was based. He recommend the applicant be permitted to proceed with MEB processing rather than administrative separation, or in the alternative be permitted to retire based upon years of service. 
o. 
He was discharged, in pay grade E-1, 19 June 2020, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). His service was characterized as general. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 20 years, 4 months, and 24 days of net active service, including 5 year, 10 months, and 26 days of foreign service, and he was awarded/authorized the: 

. 
Bronze Star Medal 

. 
Meritorious Service Medal 

. 
Army Commendation Medal (6th Award) 

. 
Army Achievement Medal (4th Award) 

. 
Meritorious Unit Commendation 

. 
Army Superior Unit Award 

. 
Army Good Conduct Medal (5th Award) 

. 
National Defense Service Medal 

. 
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal 

. 
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal 

. 
Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one bronze service star 

. 
Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars 

. 
NCO Professional Development Ribbon (5th Award) 

. 
NATO Medal 

. 
Multinational Force and Observers Medal (2nd Award) 

. 
Silver Basic Recruiter Badge 

. 
Senior Parachutist Badge 

. 
Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-Wheeled Vehicle(s) Clasp 



p. 
On 2 July 2020, it was requested the applicant’s DD Form 214 be voided and the original form be destroyed as it listed the incorrect character of service, general instead of UOTHC. A new DD Form 214 issued showing his characterization of service as UOTHC. 

q. 
In a Behavioral health treatment summary memorandum, dated 18 September 2020, the licensed clinical social worker stated: 


(1) 
The applicant began behavioral healthcare on 7 September 2018 through 15 June 2020, for a total of 71 visits during that time span. He had been diagnosed with PTSD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and Acute Stress Reaction. He had been on multiple combat deployments as a medic and has witnessed direct exposure to hundreds of severe trauma casualties, multiple rocket attacks, and as a first responder witnessed multiple casualties. 

(2) 
He had reported experiencing nightmares as a result of these deployments. He avoided public places, difficulty getting along with others, avoids crowds, and was constantly on guard. He had constant irritability and anger at times. Those traits alone would prevented him from having any kind of public employment at this time. He would need to continue behavioral health services, medication management, and ongoing psychiatric care. 

r. 
There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 


4. By regulations: 
a. AR 635-200, action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct such as commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The separation authority will direct that the case be processed through medical channels if the Soldier had an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct for which administrative separation action was being considered. 
b. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), a Soldier may be discharged from the Army for not meeting retention standards under the authority of chapter 3 of AR 40-501 and awarded a disability rating assigned by the Army’s disability system. 
5. 
The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

6. 
Title 38, USC, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 

7. 
Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 

8. 
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 

9. 
MEDICAL REVIEW: 


a. 
The applicant is applying to the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade contending that the misconduct leading to his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was due to PTSD he had developed while on active duty. He also is contending that this behavioral health condition, PTSD, should have been fully addressed, at that time, for reconsideration of a medical retirement. 

b. 
The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting documentation, his military separation packet, and the applicant's records in the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The Armed Forces Health 


Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (IPERMS) were also reviewed. Hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation in the supporting documents was not provided for review. The following findings and recommendations are duly outlined herein. 
c. 
Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he initially enlisted in the Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 12 Dec 1999 and subsequently switched to the Regular Army on 26 Jun 2000. During his active duty, he was assigned overseas to Egypt from 08 Jun 2004 - 11 Jun 2006, Iraq from 04 Oct 2006 -21 Nov 2007, Afghanistan from 02 Dec 2009 - 15 Nov 2010, Alaska from 12 Jul 2005 - 28 May 2008 and Italy from 10 Sep 2009 -14 Sep 2011. His awards included the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal (6th Award) and Army Achievement Medal (4th Award). His job assignment was as a Health Care Specialist. 

d. 
Review of military offenses included a GOMAR, dated 02 Nov 2018, by MG M indicated, “you attempted to obstruct justice in the case against yourself by manipulating your superior commissioned officer through false statement about a no-contact order. Additionally, there is probable cause to believe that you committed the following offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, stalking, indecent recording and broadcasting, assault consummated by a battery, communication of a threat and failure to obey a lawful order…you are reprimanded.” A Court Martial Order, dated 15 Feb 2019, indicated that all his charges of committing a sex act, stalking, making threats, distributing a recording, photographing area of alleged victim and assault were withdrawn and dismissed. The Order noted, “proceedings were terminated on 18 Oct 2017. On 21 Sep 2018, the convening authority withdrew and dismissed all charges and their specifications without prejudice…All rights, privileges and property of which the accused may have been deprived of by virtue of these proceedings will be restored.” This was authorized “by Command or Order of MAJ General M.” A Recommendation for Remission of Debt, dated 19 Jan 2019 indicated, “as his immediate Commander, I recommend total remission of the $4,164.16 he owes…I recommend the debt be cancelled completely.” A Request for Suspension of Retirement Orders, Headquarters, 


U.S. Army 3rd Recruiting Brigade, Fort Knox, dated 31 Jul 2019, by COL L, Commander noted, “the Board voted to separate SFC C from the Army with an Other Than Honorable discharge.” A document from Headquarters U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, dated 03 Oct 2019, by Major General M noted, “I recommend approval of the board’s findings and recommendations that he be separated…for commission of a serious offense.” An Involuntary Separation document, by the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, E. Casey Wardynski, dated 11 May 2020 indicated, “I find that his 
medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation and the circumstance do not warrant disability processing.” He received an Under Honorable Conditions discharge on 19 Jun 2020 that was subsequently changed to an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge with narrative reason, Serious Offense. 
e. In the military medical records, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, Child-Adult Family Behavioral Health Services, Fort Knox, dated 15 May 2019, by Dr. B, Psy.D. indicated, “SM currently does not meet medical retentions standards…Subject will need to be placed into the medical board system for discharge…Subject is not cleared for disciplinary separation. Subject meets PTSD exclusionary criteria.” Dr. B diagnosed him with PTSD, Chronic Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Insomnia, Unspecified. A Memorandum for the Record, Ireland Army Health Clinic, dated 24 Sep 2019, by Dr. R, MD, IDES Psychiatrist noted, “SFC C was diagnosed by a social worker on 5 Feb 2019 (Prior to the psychiatric C&P and MEB evaluation). He did not meet criteria for the condition at the time of the MEB and psychiatric C&P evaluation, as well addressed in both of these documents. He also does not meet criteria for PTSD now.” His MEB Counsel concluded, dated 10 Jun 2020 “recommend that SFC C be permitted to proceed with MEB processing rather than administrative separation, or in the alternative be permitted to retire based upon years in service.” An Adult Behavioral Health note, MEDDAC, Fort Knox, dated 18 Sep 2020, by Time Ellis, LCSW indicated, Mr. C started behavioral health treatment on 7/9/18 through 6/15/20 for a total of 71 visits during that time span. He has been diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Acute Stress Reaction. He has been on multiple combat deployments as a medic and has witnessed direct exposure to hundreds of severe trauma casualties, multiple rocket attacks, and as a first responder witnessed multiple casualties.” 
f. In the ABCMR supporting documents, a Memorandum for General Courts Martial Convening Authority, Fort Knox, dated 03 Sep 2019, by P with Phillip Law, PLLC, Clarksville, TN maintained, “respondent requests that the Administrative Separation for Misconduct and the resulting Board results be dismissed. This would allow him to complete his separation and retirement through the Medical Board and Retire routes…I am a military law attorney and I represent the Respondent. The request is based on three basis: (1) the Respondent has a service connected disability (PTSD) that requires a grant of liberal consideration, (2) Respondent has an approved retirement and has served more than 19 and a half years in the military, and (3) Respondent should be allowed to go through the Medical Evaluation Board Process. On behalf of my client, I respectfully request that you find that the Respondent has PTSD and should be given liberal consideration in this case.” 
g. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) included a clinical session in 2008 where he was having marital problems and taking some Anger/Domestic Violence Management Group Therapy. He acknowledged in another clinical session (05 Jan 2009) a history of OCD, taking medications and having a short temper. He referred to a CID investigation he was going through in a clinical session (30 Jun 2016) at Ireland Behavioral Health. Other session notes indicated that his “wife asked if he would get checked for PTSD” due to hypervigilance (09 May 2018), and his desire to get out of the Army from a “CID investigation that lasted over 2 years” (16 Nov 2018). In a clinical session, dated 26 Jun 2019, he reported, ”I beat a court martial and now the unit is doing a separation board on 23 Jul.” A clinical note, dated 02 Oct 2019 indicated, “stress level through the roof…stated that he has been feeling overwhelmed and is angry with his command. He stated the Court Martial was dismissed because the witness was not considered trustworthy and did not come. He then went before a separation Board and they stated he did assault the woman, but they had no proof and could not say how or when it occurred…Sm stated his MEB has been on hold since the Board and he does not know what the next step is.” The clinical psychologist diagnosed him with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Unspecified. The Problem List included Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Unspecified; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Sleep Disorder, Organic; Insomnia and Interpersonal Relationship Problem. 
h. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicated a 100% service connected disability with Sleep Apnea Syndrome 50%, Chronic Adjustment Disorder 30%, Kidney Stones 30%, Intervertebral Disc Syndrome 20%, Limited Motion of Arm 20% x2, Limited Motion of Ankle 10%, Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 10%, Facial Scars 10%, Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 10%, Limited Motion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Ankle 10%, Paralysis of Anterior Crural Nerve 10%, Limited Flexion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Wrist 10%, Limited Flexion of Knee 10%, Lumbosacral or Cervical Strain 10%, Tinnitus 10%, Limited Flexion of Knee 10%, Limited Flexion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Forearm 10%, Hiatal hernia 10%, Limited Motion of Wrist 10%, and Paralysis of Anterior Crural Nerve 10%. An Outpatient Encounter Note, dated 14 Aug 2020 indicated, “he had 5 guns, all with locks on them. Has a 45 sitting by the front door and an AR-16 loaded under his bed. Says there was an instance where he about killed someone (person was following him on the highway). It was noted to be due to PTSD…reports ‘things are kinda bad,’ reports that he has always had suicidal thoughts daily…had been seen for PTSD; was a combat medic with multiple deployments…is still dealing with the military, still has to go to the Army Review Board. Feels the command is still messing with him…would like to be set up for counseling for PTSD.” The psychiatrist diagnosed him with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic; Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate, Adjustment Disorder/SC and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder by history. A Psychology Note, dated 12 Jan 2021 
indicated, “thinking about what would be the most helpful place for him to start 
addressing symptoms of PTSD…voiced a preference for the mindfulness for PTSD 
group.” The provider diagnosed him with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The Problem List included Bipolar Disorder, Current Episode Mixed, Mild (24 Feb 2021); Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe without Psychotic Features (14 Aug 2020); Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (14 Aug 2020); and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (adult) (pediatric) (12 Aug 2020). The remaining behavioral health related conditions have been noted on the AHLTA problem list. 
i. Review of the applicant’s military and military medical records indicate the following: 
(1) 
Report of Mental Status Evaluation (May 2019) indicated he did not meet medical retentions standards and should be referred to the medical board system for discharge. It was further stressed he was not cleared for disciplinary separation. The psychologist diagnosed him with PTSD, Chronic Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Insomnia, Unspecified. 

(2) 
An IDES Psychiatrist concluded (Sep 2019) his prior diagnosis of PTSD by a social worker (Feb 2019) preceded the psychiatric C&P and MEB evaluation. She asserted that these findings demonstrated he did not meet criteria for PTSD, and that he currently did not meet the criteria for PTSD. 

(3) 
His MEB Counsel (Jun 2020) recommended he be allowed to go through the MEB process rather than administrative separation, or be approved for retirement. 

(4) 
An Involuntary Separation document, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (May 2020) indicated that his medical condition was not a 


“direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the 
recommendation for administrative separation and the circumstance do not warrant 
disability processing.” 
(5) 
A behavioral health note (Sep 2020) maintained he had undergone behavioral health treatment from 7/9/18 -6/15/20 (71 visits) and been diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Acute Stress Reaction. The LCSW further noted applicant had multiple combat deployments as a medic and been exposed to numerous trauma casualties and rocket attacks as a first responder. 

(6) 
A GOMOR (Nov 2018) charged him with obstructing justice with probable cause of rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, stalking, indecent recording and broadcasting, assault consummated by a battery, communication of a threat and failure to obey an order. 

(7) 
Court Martial Order (Feb 2019) dismissed all his charges of rape, stalking, making threats, distributing a recording, photographing area of alleged victim and assault. The Order noted, “proceedings were terminated and all his “rights, privileges and property” that were deprived from the Court-Martial proceedings were restored to him. 


j. Review of the VA electronic medical record (JLV) indicates a 100% service connected disability with Sleep Apnea Syndrome 50%, Chronic Adjustment Disorder 30%, Kidney Stones 30%, Intervertebral Disc Syndrome 20%, Limited Motion of Arm 20% x2, Limited Motion of Ankle 10%, Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 10%, Facial Scars 10%, Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 10%, Limited Motion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Ankle 10%, Paralysis of Anterior Crural Nerve 10%, Limited Flexion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Wrist 10%, Limited Flexion of Knee 10%, Lumbosacral or Cervical Strain 10%, Tinnitus 10%, Limited Flexion of Knee 10%, Limited Flexion of Forearm 10%, Limited Motion of Forearm 10%, Hiatal Hernia 10%, Limited Motion of Wrist 10%, and Paralysis of Anterior Crural Nerve 10%. 
(1) 
It is important to understand that any VA findings of service connection does not automatically result in a military medical retirement. The VA operates under different rules, laws and regulations when assigning disability percentages than the Department of Defense (DOD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all disabilities felt to be unsuiting. The Department of Defense, however, does not compensate for unsuiting conditions. It only compensates for unfitting conditions. Based on the available military medical records, there is indication that the applicant did not meet the criteria for an unfitting psychiatric condition (PTSD) at the time he went through the MEB. 

(2) 
It is also important to note that the Department of Defense does not compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions that were incurred during active military service. This is a role reserved for the VA. 

(3) 
Based on the information in the applicant’s medical record, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. Problems arising from PTSD often contribute to self-isolation, anger outbursts, minor 


assaultive behavior, intrusive memories, nightmares, interpersonal difficulties, poor sleep and self-medication with drugs/alcohol. A GOMAR charge indicating probable cause of sexual assault, physical assault, threats, stalking and inappropriate recording/photographing, along with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to serious misconduct (i.e. referencing these GOMAR charges) is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. A discharge upgrade is not recommended. 
k. In conclusion, the following determinations are made. 
(1) 
The applicant’s military records do not support the presence of boardable behavioral health problems, specifically PTSD, 

(2) 
The applicant’s military records indicate that the applicant did meet medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 at the time of the MEB. 

(3) 
Applicant’s behavioral health condition DOES NOT warrant separation through medical channels. 

(4) 
The applicant’s medical conditions regarding behavioral health symptoms, diagnoses and adverse impact on him specific to PTSD was duly considered during medical separation processing. 


l. It is therefore the opinion of the Agency psychologist that a referral of the applicant’s record to IDES for consideration of military medical retirement for PTSD is not indicated at this time. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. 
The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's Counsel statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. The applicant was issued a GOMOR for misconduct that he accepted and did not rebut against. The applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency 

determination.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 

2. 
The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence the contested medical conditions failed to meet retention standards during his period of service. There was no record of a PTSD nor TBI event in his record during or after the deployments. The applicant was not awarded a Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, nor Combat Medical Badge. Therefore, the Board determined referral to DES for consideration of a medical separation is not warranted. The Board also agreed 


regulatory guidance was followed when the GCMCA considered the applicant’s medical 
concerns during the administrative separation process, and within his authority, proceeded to separate the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XXX :XX DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 
X 
CHAIRPERSON 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. 
REFERENCES: 
1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation state in: 
a. 
Chapter 14 – the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included 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 absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy stated that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged for misconduct. 

b. 
On receiving a recommendation for separation for misconduct, the separation authority can direct that the case be processed through medical channels, if appropriate. Such disposition is required if the Soldier had an incapacitating physical or mental illness that is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct for which action prescribed in this regulation was being considered, and action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice will not be initiated. Authority to determine that a case will be referred for disability processing instead of other administrative processing would not be delegated. 

c. 
An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

d. 
A general discharge is separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 


2. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, prescribed policy and implements the requirements of chapter 61 (Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability) of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC). The regulation stated: 
a. The mere presence of a medical impairment did not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. A Soldier was physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 
b. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) was primarily used as a guide for evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. Because of differences between Army and VA applications of rating policies, differences in ratings could result. Unlike the VA, the Army must first determine whether or not a Soldier was fit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Once a Soldier was determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings were applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. Those percentages were applied based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation. 
3. 
AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, governed medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation (including retirement). Once a determination of physical unfitness was made, the Physical Evaluation Board would rate all disabilities using the VASRD. Ratings can range from 0% to 100%, rising in increments of 10%. 

4. 
Title 10, USC, section 1201 provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30%. Title 10, USC, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30%. 

5. 
Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual 


concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical 
condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 
6. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. 
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//