1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 December 2019 b. Date Received: 9 December 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he exhibited signs of a thought disorder while in service. The applicant saw Soldiers, who were killed by a van while he was in South Carolina. The applicant states, images of the incident continues to haunt him today. 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 Depressive Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Schizophrenia. The applicant is not service- connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially 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 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 November 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 17 March 2018, he committed the offense of abusive sexual contact by touching the buttocks of Private A.L. with his hand and his groin without her consent; On or about 17 March 2018, he committed the offense of abusive sexual contact by touching the inner thigh of Private A.L. with his hand without her consent; On or about 17 March 2018, he wrongfully assaulted Staff Sergeant L.J. a noncommissioned officer, by striking at her with a closed fist; On or about 17 March 2018, he was restricted to the charge of quarter's area. The applicant broke said restriction by leaving the area, which was to the prejudice of good order; On or about 6 June 2018, he violated a lawful general order, Commanding General's Policy Memorandum No. 10, by wrongfully introducing a synthetic cannabinoid onto the Fort Gordon military reservation; and, On or about 7 June 2018, he committed the offense of abusive sexual contact by touching the buttocks of K.B. with his hand without her consent. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 November 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 13 November 2018, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 November 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 September 2017 / 3 years, 11 months b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 year, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Offer to Plea Guilty, dated 17 October 2018, reflects the applicant offered to plead guilty to the following at Summary Court-Martial: Charge II and its Specification (Violation of Article 92, UCMJ), Charge Ill and its Specifications (Violation of Article 120, UCMJ), Charge IV, Specification 1 (Violation of Article 128, UCMJ), and Charge V and its Specification (Violation of Article 134 UCMJ). In exchange for his offer to plead guilty, the Government agreed to dismiss with prejudice Charge I and its Specification (Violation of Article 90, UCMJ) and Charge IV, Specification 2 (Violation of Article 128, UCMJ). Additionally, as part of his pre-trial offer, he agreed to take the following actions: To waive production at Government expense of Defense witnesses locate R.C.M. 1001 (e), provided the Government will: (1) enter into a stipulation of expected testimony for those witnesses pursuant to R.C.M. 811; or (2) agreed to accept telephonic testimony from those witnesses. The applicant understood that this did not waive her right to offer into evidence other forms of evidence under R.C.M. 1001 (c), including, but not limited to, other witnesses, letters, affidavits, photographs, awards, and certificates.. To be tried by Summary Court-Martial. The applicant agreed to submit an unconditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board empowered to recommend an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge. He had been advised by counsel of the prejudice he may face in the civilian world as a result of an Other Than Honorable characterization of service discharge and agreed to take all the actions above provided the Convening Authority refers the preferred charge to a Summary Court- Martial. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial, dated 13 November 2018, reflects: Charge I: Violation of Article 90, UCMJ. Dismissed IAW plea offer. Charge II: Violation of Article 82, UCMJ, the applicant did on or about 6 June 2018, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Commanding General's Policy Memorandum No. 10- Prohibited Substances, paragraph 4(b)(1), dated 11 October 2016, by wrongfully introducing a synthetic cannabinoid onto the Fort Gordon military reservation. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge III: Violation of Article 120, UCMJ: Specification 1: the applicant did on or about 17 March 2018, touch, through the clothing, the buttocks of Private (E-2) A. L. with his hand by causing bodily harm to her, to wit: touching her buttocks without her consent, with an intent to humiliate Private (E-2) A. L. and to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the applicant. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Specification 2: the applicant did on or about 17 March 2018, touch, through the clothing, the inner though of Private (E-2) A. L. with his hand by causing bodily harm to her, to wit: touching her inner thigh without her consent, with an intent to humiliate Private (E-2) A. L. and to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the applicant. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Specification 3: the applicant did on or about 17 March 2018, touch, through the clothing, the buttocks of Private (E-2) A. L. with his groin by causing bodily harm to her, to wit: touching her without her consent, with an intent to humiliate Private (E-2) A. L. and to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the applicant. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Specification 4: the applicant did on or about 7 June 2018, touch, through the clothing, the buttocks of Private (E-1) K-J. B. with his hand by causing bodily harm to her, to wit: touching her buttocks without her consent, with an intent to humiliate Private (E-1) K- J. B. and to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the applicant. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge IV: Violation of Article 128, UCMJ: Specification 1: the applicant did on or about 17 March 2018, assault Staff Sergeant L. J. by striking at her with a closed fist. Specification 2: Dismissed IAW plea offer. Charge V: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ: the applicant having been restricted to the limits of Charge of Quarters at building 29707, by a person authorized to do so, did, at or near Fort Gordon, Georgia, on or about 17 March 2018, break said restriction, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: To be reduced to the rank of E-1; forfeiture of $1,092 pay for one month; and 45 days of hard labor without confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Medical Treatment letter, dated 22 November 2019, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; VA Medical Treatment letter; Psychiatry Discharge Note. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 the VA has diagnosed him with schizophrenia. 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. Further, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 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 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 / 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 AR20200004288 4