1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2016 b. Date Received: 20 May 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable, and to change the narrative reason and its corresponding reentry code for his discharge. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, an upgrade would allow him to receive VA benefits, medical care, and therapy for his PTSD. His alcoholism started prior to his recruiting duties and became worse when he became a recruiter. He believes his alcoholism is a symptom of his PTSD-he used alcohol to deal with his struggles. His actions that led to his discharge were not representative of him or his family. The counsel on behalf of the applicant stated in his brief, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant's characterization of service is inequitable because he served faithfully and meritoriously for 15 years, a total of 39 months of combat service with no other instances of misconduct, and he was diagnosed with PTSD prior to the misconduct and his PTSD mitigate the acts of misconduct. His discharge was improper because the GOMOR concluded that separation should not occur based on the same acts of misconduct at issue before the administrative separation board. The GCMCA had remanded the case to the applicant's unit with the clear statement that only "further incidents" would lead to more serious action. Despite the MEB evaluation findings, he was not medically separated for PTSD as he continues to suffer from severe PTSD symptoms resulting from the three combat tours. The record contains substantial evidence linking the applicant's acts of misconduct to his PTSD as he believes his PTSD and alcoholism became so severe he struggled to know right from wrong. The applicant knows his actions failed to live up to the Army Values of Honor and Integrity; however, the punishment of a UOTH discharge was too harsh. He and his family were left in a difficult situation where they struggle to meet basic necessities. An upgrade would enable him to receive care and benefits from VA. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's Behavioral Health conditions mitigate some of his offenses. JLV indicates the applicant is 100 percent service connected for PTSD. Because PTSD can lead to abuse of alcohol for self- medication and TBI can lead to increased impulsivity and impaired judgement (especially in the presence of alcohol intoxication), there is likely a nexus between his PTSD/TBI and the offenses of serving alcohol to underage soldiers and future soldiers and drinking with recruits at a Giant's game. PTSD is considered mitigating for these offenses. However, neither PTSD nor TBI mitigates the offenses of making a false official statement and asking two witnesses to give false statements to investigators in an attempt to conceal his misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 August 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, prior period of honorable service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent VA PTSD and significant childhood OBH), 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 general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-7/SFC. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: 30 June 2015, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (Applicant's "Exhibit D" evidence) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 December 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (Although NIF, the applicant's documentary evidence indicate the separation authority approved the administrative separation board's recommendation, and also found that the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct, and that his case did not warrant disability processing.) (Applicant's "Exhibit M" evidence) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 December 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 14 years, 3 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (2 October 2001 to 8 December 2005) / HD RA (9 December 2005 to 17 December 2009) / HD (NIF) RA (18 December 2009 to 3 December 2013) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (28 January 2005 to 28 January 2006), (7 October 2006 to 22 December 2007), Afghanistan (30 May 2009 to 28 April 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5; AAM-4; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ICM-4CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; NCOPDR-2; ASR; OSR-4; NATOMDL; MUC; VUA g. Performance Ratings: Three NCOERs rendered during period under current review: 1 April 2013 thru 31 March 2014, Among the Best 1 April 2014 thru 31 March 2015, RFC, Marginal 1 April 2015 thru 30 December 2015, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 January 2015, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for supplying alcohol to underage Soldiers and Future Soldiers, making a false official statement to the investigating officer, and contacting two witnesses and asked them to give false statements to conceal his misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The Medical Evaluation Board by a clinical psychologist summarizes the applicant's behavioral health issues diagnoses, including PTSD. (Applicant's "Exhibit E" evidence) Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, dated 16 November 2015, notes behavioral health issues and diagnoses, including PTSD. (Applicant's 16-page "Exhibit G" evidence) Physical Profile, dated 9 November 2015, shows the applicant received a permanent profile due to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" medical condition. (Applicant's "Exhibit H" evidence) VA letter, dated 4 March 2016, rendered by licensed medical social worker, with readjustment counseling service, notes behavioral health issues with DSM 5 criteria for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. (Applicant's "Exhibit I" evidence) 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 16 May 2016; two family pictures; applicant's DA official military photo; and applicant's counsel brief (pages 1 through 25) with list of attachments, at pages 24 and 25, identified as exhibits A through O. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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." "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 to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable, and to change the narrative reason and its corresponding reentry code for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's submitted evidence 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. Because the Board does not have access to the applicant's complete separation file, it cannot ascertain with any degree of certainty the complete basis for the applicant's separation. However, the applicant has submitted substantial portions of the separation packet. Assuming the incidents of misconduct presented by the applicant were the only acts of misconduct, and considering the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to these incidents, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Furthermore, on the basis of isolated incidents of misconduct, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to receive VA benefits, medical care, and therapy for his PTSD. 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 application also noted that in addition to needing help, probability existed for homelessness. The applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved being diagnosed with PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence 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. Regarding the medical evaluation board reports, the separation authority considered the medical evidence, and determined that was not the case. Further, Army Regulation 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. The Board is not bound by the separation authority's finding in that regard, and can review that determination. However, 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 contends the discharge was unjust due to a number of inequitable and propriety issues. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence available in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. 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 also requests to change the reentry code that corresponds with the narrative reason for his discharge. Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. Based on the available 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: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 August 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, prior period of honorable service, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent VA PTSD and significant childhood OBH), 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 general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-7/SFC. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore Grade to: E-7/SFC 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 AR20160009888 5