1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 June 2015 b. Date Received: 8 June 2015 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, while deployed he met the Army Body Fat Standards when he was taped; however, upon redeployment, he had a profile for his knee and shins, and failed the tape. An upgrade would allow him to get an education and become productive. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. Mental Status Exam from July 2010 included a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression and Alcohol Dependence. He met medical retention standards and was psychiatrically cleared. Screened negative for PTSD and TBI. ASAP treatment from March-August 2010. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization was improper. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of two biochemical tests which were coded RO (Rehabilitation) and that it was part of the applicant’s Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence because the test was administered as part of the applicant’s rehabilitation program. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was proper and equitable and the Board voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 August 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: receiving a CG Article 15 for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO and for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (19 September 2008); receiving a CG Article 15 for five specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and two specifications of disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (24 June 2010); and, receiving numerous counseling statements for misconduct that were prejudicial to good order and discipline. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 17 August 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 27 August 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 21 March 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / GED / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, and 18 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 November 2008 – 19 October 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for disrespecting an NCO; failing to obey an order or regulation; being drunk and disorderly; substandard performance; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; potential outcome of failing to report for his corrective training; nonpayment of debt; responsibility for properly managing funds and financial affairs; performance being marginal; failing to pass the diagnostic APFT; dereliction of duty; being enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program; noncompliance with the Army weight and body fat standards; insubordinate behavior towards an NCO; malingering; lacking motivation; failing to put maximum effort during physical fitness session; failing to pass an APFT; inflicting negative attitude on others Soldiers; unsatisfactory performance; loss or damage to government property (TA-50); leaving barracks door unsecured; failing Class-A inspection; and failing to maintain initial Class A issue. DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 18 April 2008, reflects the applicant had a temporary profile of 113111 for shin splints with an expiration date of 30 May 2008. CG Article 15, dated 19 September 2008, for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO (23 August 2008), and disobeying an NCO (23 August 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $314.00 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Memorandum from MEDDAC, dated 9 March 2010, Subject: Weight Control Program, indicates the applicant was medically cleared to participate in a weight control and exercise program. Five DA Forms 5500 (Body Fat Content Worksheet), dated between 2 March 2010 and 28 July 2010, indicate the applicant was not in compliance with the standards and each recommended a monthly weight loss of 3-8 pounds. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 21 April 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for marijuana during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 9 April 2010. Two Electronic copies of the DD Forms 2624, dated 22 April 2010 and 15 May 2010, reflect that the specimens collected from the applicant tested positive for marijuana during two Rehabilitation Testing (RO) based urinalyses conducted on 15 April 2010 (ASAP) and 7 May 2010 (ASAP). CG Article 15, dated 24 June 2010, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions (3 March 2010, 16 March 2010, 18 March 2010, and 6 May 2010), without authority leaving his appointed place of duty (1 June 2010 and 3 June 2010), and disobeying an NCO on two separate occasions (26 May 2010 and 27 May 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $337.00, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 30 July 2010, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression, Alcohol Dependence. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action. DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 27 July 2010, indicates the applicant was being treated for behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 2 June 2015. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 and the issues 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 record further indicates that the characterization of service appears to be improper. The record confirms the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical tests conducted on 15 April 2010 and 7 May 2010, which were both coded RO (Rehabilitation) and that they were part of the applicant’s Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. They are limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and are protected evidence because the test was administered as part of the applicant’s rehabilitation program. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. The discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was not within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was not provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization was improper. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of two biochemical tests which were coded RO (Rehabilitation) and that it was part of the applicant’s Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence because the test was administered as part of the applicant’s rehabilitation program. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was proper and equitable and the Board voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150010009 5