1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 February 2016 b. Date Received: 23 February 2016 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, he suffers from PTSD and currently receives treatment. He had outstanding service and the incident for which he was discharged was clearly a direct result of the substance and alcohol abuse resulting from his PTSD. His PTSD is severe and was diagnosed within a year of enlistment with the VA. He has seen practitioners for help and is working on getting stabilized, since his failed suicide attempt, resulting in his tracheotomy and a feeding tube. He desires the upgrade to allow him to receive educational benefits. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the case does not, in my professional judgment, merit mitigation. The applicant's JLV record showed him to have a VA service-connected disability rating of 70 percent. His VA problem list include Cannabis Dependence in Remission, Cocaine Dependence in Remission. Opioid Dependence in Remission, Alcohol Dependence in Remission, Other Depressive Episodes, and Chronic PTSD. Homelessness (2015), and a history of suicidal ideation and behavior. He is a troubled man and between AHLTA and the VA, he has had over 860 outpatient visits. He his pre-discharge MSE, it is very difficult to credit the idea that he was 'self-medicating" at the time of his two DUIs. He had a history of heavy drinking that pre-dated his deployment. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 May 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: operated a motor vehicle with a BAC of .200% (18 March 2014); and, second DUI in three years; first DUI was on 2 July 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: (form was blank) (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 August 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman / 6 years, 6 month, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 May 2008 to 6 May 2010 / HD RA, 7 May 2010 to19 January 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (20 August 2009 to 26 July 2010) and Afghanistan (8 March 2012 to 11 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2012 thru 31 March 2013, Among The Best 1 April 2013 thru 21 October 2013, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 April 2014, for operating a motor vehicle on 18 March 2014, while under the influence of alcohol. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 April 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Hawaii Armed Service Police Report, dated 18 March 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for operating a vehicle under the influence, with a BrAC of .200%. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for imposition of flag; DUI; Alcohol or Drug abuse failure; unauthorized entry of motor vehicle; drunk on CRF; command referral to ASAP; violation of standards of conduct; and, flag removal. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Cambridge Outpatient Clinic letter, dated 9 February 2016, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, Insomnia Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder (Abuse) in remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 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. 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. The applicant's available 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 be retained on active duty. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends the VA has been treating him for PTSD. The applicant provides character letters from members of his unit to support his contentions. 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 although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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 discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 May 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was 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 Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160004741 1