1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 October 2015 b. Date Received: 23 November 2015 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he was discharged for charges that he was found innocent of by the State of Alabama. The applicant contends that he had a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and retirement taken from him. He did his best trying to be the best Soldier he could be, attaining the rank of sergeant in just over two years. An upgrade and restoration of his rank and retirement would help his family obtain a house. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant was in the MEB process at the time of his discharge. A Major General selected the administrative discharge rather than an MEB. His AHLTA record behavior-health diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Chronic Pain, Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Insomnia, and Other Mood Disorder. In the Joint Legacy Viewer for VA in AHLTA, active problems on the VA Problem List include Erectile Dysfunction, PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Alcohol Dependence. PTSD was first diagnosed in the Army in 2012 after the applicant was in major trouble over a drunk-driving incident that seems to have led the a Major General to select a discharge over an MEB; however, treatment for anxiety symptoms began at least as far back as 2008. Further when he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2012, he admitted he has been anxious since his teens and that he began taking an antidepressant after BCT (entered Army September 2007). Before entering ASAP in May 2011, he said he had a "3-4 month period of drinking a quart of Jack Daniels per night. He completed ASAP and said he relapsed in November by drinking a quart of Jack Daniels per night for entire month. In any event, drinking is ordinarily mitigated by PTSD. The chief question here is whether to mitigate AFTER he is diagnosed with PTSD and has treatment for it and his Alcoholism, but nevertheless drives with a blood alcohol level of .12 and forced a family to swerve to avoid an accident with him. The case for mitigation seems further weakened by the applicant already having a General Discharge; however, his case is unusual in that not receiving a medical retirement is a substantial penalty. Mitigation could certainly be a defensible course of action. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 February 2017, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 19 March 2012, he crossed over into the oncoming lane of traffic and forced CPT M and his family (who were driving South in the other lane) to swerve almost off the road to avoid being hit. CPT M, then turned around and pursued the applicant, as he (the applicant) ran through a ditch, trying to get him to pull over and eventually the applicant was discovered that he had been drinking. The applicant was already enrolled in ASAP for alcohol abuse, and he had a BAC of .12 percent at the time of the aforementioned incident. Additionally, the applicant had received a FG Article for misconduct with a suspended demotion to E-4, which was vacated on 28 March 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 October 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / Associate's Degree / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 5 years, 1 month, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 September 2007 to 27 January 2010 / HD RA, 28 January 2010 to 4 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (18 December 2009 to 4 December 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2010 thru 28 February 2011, Fully Capable 1 March 2011 thru 29 February 2012, RFC, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 March 2012, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman, not his wife, between 1 September 2011 and 8 February 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended), forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months, and 30 days of extra duty. An Incident Report, dated 18 March 2012, reflects the applicant was involved in driving under the influence of alcohol with a .12 BAC and, as background information, the applicant was enrolled at that time in ASAP for alcohol abuse. Military Police Report, dated 19 March 2012, reflects that the applicant was the subject of an investigation for civil arrest and driving under the influence of alcohol. Negative counseling statements for purchasing, possessing, and consuming alcohol while enrolled in ASAP; disobeying a commissioned officer; being recommended for an involuntary separation; having multiple inappropriate relations with a junior enlisted Soldier's spouse; having sexual intercourse with a person he was not married to; receiving multiple briefs and choosing to disregard warnings of punishment; and being arrested for DUI. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 28 March 2012, vacated the punishment of a reduction to E-4 imposed on 6 March 2012, because the applicant operated a vehicle in a reckless manner by running CPT M and his family off the road and running through a ditch, with an alcohol concentration in his breathe that exceeded 0.08 grams of alcohol, a limit under a State statute on 19 March 2012. Civilian Uniform Arrest Report, dated 3 September 2012, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 13 September 2012, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 March 2012, reports a diagnoses of (Axis I) Alcohol dependence, Substance-induced anxiety and (Axis II) cluster B traits. The report also indicated the applicant had significant alcohol dependence history and a continued treatment at ASAP; that he currently did not meet the criteria of PTSD or TBI; and that his coping mechanisms were overwhelmed and "he should engage in ongoing talk therapy, med management, and continued substance dependence treatment during his transition out of the military." Report of Medical History, dated 26 April and 4 May 2012, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings with its associated documents, dated 27 June 2012, show diagnoses of PTSD and sleepwalking disorder. The board recommended a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The findings and recommendation of the board were approved and the applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation on 2 and 3 July 2012, respectively. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; applicant's authored letter to a Senator; email containing applicant's authored letter; attorney letter; State Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint; and four character reference letters. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and document 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 or sufficient 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 he was found innocent of the charges and they were dismissed. However, the applicant's documentary evidence shows this action was a county court's procedural step, part of a process by a county "Veterans Court," when an alternative forum was chosen because the applicant had completed the requirements imposed by the presiding judge to help and treat veterans referred to the court, rather than having them serve a confinement or jail. Further, the applicant contends his rank should be restored because the dismissed charges. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The reduction in rank was the result of an Article 15 punishment under the UCMJ. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, symptoms of PTSD, that were described as resulting from his deployments were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635- 5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends his current discharge took his completed MEB process and retirement from him. However, AR 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to obtain a house for his family. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 applicant contends his rank should be restored because the charge of misconduct was dismissed. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The reduction in rank was the result of an Article 15 punishment under the UCMJ. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to mitigate the reason for or characterization of the discharge. 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 3 February 2017, 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 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20160001332 1