1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 March 2016 b. Date Received: 28 March 2016 c. Counsel: 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 did two terms in the military, with the first term being honorable. After two tours in Iraq, he started to have drinking problems and did not realize his mental health status, which he is currently seeking treatment at the VA for this condition. His second term was almost over by the time he was discharged. His drinking was his fault, but he was unaware of the stress he was under at the time, due to his time in service and his tours in Iraq. His request is based on the nature of his war time service and his honorable service before the two drinking incidents. If an upgrade is not possible, he requests that his two separate terms in service be divided into two separate DD Form 214s, because his first enlistment was honorable. He acknowledges his actions in drinking and has been sober since his discharge. He has been seeking treatment at the VA medical clinic, which has helped him with his stress condition and he is currently in college and doing well. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. Although, the applicant did not have an in-service diagnosis of Depression, he endorsed several symptoms in response to life stressors. Depressive symptoms can be associated with use of alcohol for self- medication, risk-taking behaviors, impaired judgment, and impulsivity; therefore, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 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, severe family matters, depression, in- service alcohol abuse, and prior period of honorable 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: 15 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (2 October 2009 and 31 March 2012), for which he received an Article 15; and, failed to go to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions (2 October 2009, 13 and 21 September 2011, 12 October 2011), for which he received an Article 15. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 16 April 2012, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / NIF / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 6 years, 3 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 February 2006 to 29 December 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 May 2007 to 14 July 2008 and 30 October 2009 to 30 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 February 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (2 October 2009) and DUI (2 October 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $811 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 17 November 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (13 and 21 September 2011 and 12 October 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $455 (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Uniform Traffic Citation, Bryan County Sheriff's Department, dated 31 March 2012, reflects the applicant cited for: Failure to maintain lane; and, DUI (2nd offense). Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for: Failing to report to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed on multiple occasions; DUI; and, driving with a suspended license. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 April 2012, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Alcohol Abuse. Letter, dated 12 October 2011, from Fort Stewart, Medical Department, reflects the applicant was seen by the Behavioral Health for emotional stressors. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 14 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Since his discharge, the applicant has been sober; has been seeking treatment at the VA medical clinic; and, he is currently in college. 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 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 two combat tours. 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 that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. The applicant did provide a request for separation based on hardship, dated 13 October 2011, which was after he committed several acts of misconduct. Further, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends he receives treatment from the VA for his stressors. 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 record reflects that on 13 April 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 19 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, severe family matters, depression, in-service alcohol abuse, and prior period of honorable 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. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160006557 1