1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 October 2015 b. Date Received: 13 October 2015 b. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests through his counsel for an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant’s counsel states, in effect, the applicant would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive education benefits. The applicant further seeks relief contending, in effect, he is a combat veteran and has been diagnosed with PTSD and is 100 percent service connected at this time. He also contends he was suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident that caused his discharge. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is evidence of a mitigating behavioral health condition in the case. The applicant provided documentation of his diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the VA. It is likely that the condition existed while the applicant was still on Active duty. Because PTSD is often associated with substance abuse and substance abuse related incidents, there is likely a nexus between the PTSD and the applicant's offense. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., post service diagnosis of 100 percent PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, in a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board further determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 July 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Other Than Honorable) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 May 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 5 June 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 1 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 28 years / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-5 / 91E1P, Allied Trade Specialist / 4 years, 8 months, and 4 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: USARCG-14 October 2008-30 December 2008 / NA RA-31 December 2008-29 February 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Southwest Asia / Afghanistan (26 March 2010- 13 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, ACM-w/CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: A Military Police Report, dated 14 March 2013, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for drunken driving and refusal to submit to a chemical test. Article 15, imposed on 17 April 2013, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car while drunk. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4 and extra duty for 45 days (FG). A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 9 May 2013, which shows the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol in Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska on 9 March 2013, with a BAC of 0.110 percent. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 April 2013, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for unspecified substance use. It was noted the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI and both had results of negative. The applicant was cleared by FR BHC for administrative action under Chapter 14. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293, dated 7 October 2010. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None. 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. 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, by implication provided the same guidance to the Service Discharge Review Boards whose decisions are reviewable by the Service Correction Boards. That memorandum provided PTSD or PTSD-related conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." However, the memorandum also states, "Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under 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 the 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 through his counsel for an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions discharge) to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he is a combat veteran and has been diagnosed with PTSD and is 100 percent service connected at this time. He also contends he was suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident that caused his discharge. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, in the applicant’s records shows he was screened for PTSD and had a negative result. Although the applicant contends he has been diagnosed with PTSD and is 100 percent service connected, the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition or that he has been diagnosed since his discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for and upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive education benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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: Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is evidence of a mitigating behavioral health condition in the case. The applicant provided documentation of his diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the VA. It is likely that the condition existed while the applicant was still on Active duty. Because PTSD is often associated with substance abuse and substance abuse related incidents, there is likely a nexus between the PTSD and the applicant's offense. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., post service diagnosis of 100 percent PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, in a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board further determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and 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 AR20150016767 5