1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 May 2016 b. Date Received: 27 May 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, before the arrest that led to his discharge, he was on a 15 month combat tour and had poor mental health. Prior to the incident, he had no adverse actions, his marriage was annulled, and he was a victim of identity theft. He states other than the isolated incident his service was honest, faithful and meritorious. Prior to his discharge, he was experiencing the first signs of PTSD and he believes it was affecting his behavior as it was not his normal behavior. His chain of command was unsupportive and offered no rehabilitation measures to the applicant. The applicant was immediately assigned to another unit. Currently, he has a permanent bar on becoming a United States citizen and he had to decline adopting his stepdaughter because he was financially unable to support her and his two children. Since his discharge, it has not been easy for him and he eventually became eligible to receive mental health treatment. He has logged over 10,000 hours logged as a union carpenter. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's behavioral health conditions did not mitigate the misconduct of distribution of drugs. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 August 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, Commission of a Serious Offense / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) Note: Based on the governing regulation at the time of the applicant's discharge, the characterization of service should reflect "Misconduct (Serious Offense)." b. Date of Discharge: 11 October 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 July 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was found guilty at a Special (BCD) Court Martial, on 7 April 2005, for the following offenses: On or about 15 January 2005, he wrongfully distributed approximately 7.92 grams of marijuana; on or about 17 January 2005; He wrongfully distributed 6.87 grams of marijuana; and, He conspired with another Soldier to wrongfully distribute marijuana between on or about 1 January 2005 and 17 January 2005. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 August 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 September 2005 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 March 2002 / 4 years / Note: The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects he entered active duty on 14 June 2002; however, his service record reflects he was discharged from the delayed entry program on 6 March 2002, for enlistment in the active duty Army. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years, 3 months, 5 days / Note: The total service was based on the applicant's correct entry on active duty, less 4 months of confinement. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Special Court-Martial on 7 April 2005. The applicant was charged with 3 specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 112 a, two specifications, for wrongfully distributing 7.92 grams of marijuana on 15 January 2005, and 6.87 grams of marijuana on 17 January; guilty, consistent with the plea on both specifications. Violation of Article 81, Conspired with PVT B to commit an offense under the UCMJ, of the wrongful distribution of marijuana; guilty, consistent with the plea. He was sentenced to Reduction to E-1; Forfeiture $823 pay per month for 4 months and confinement for 4 months. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: On 7 April 2005, the applicant began his confinement as a result of his sentence. The service record is void of his release date / NIF. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 July 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any 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 Legal problems (Axis I) and Antisocial Traits (Axis II). The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, effective date 8 February 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for other specified trauma related disorder with alcohol use disorder claimed as depression mood swings, anxiety and insanity. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Logged over 10,000 hours logged as a union carpenter. 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 have been retained on active duty. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The applicant provided a copy of his disability rating, which reflects he was rated 70 percent disability for other specified trauma, but not PTSD. 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 shows that on 28 July 2005, 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 applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 his command was unsupportive and offered no measures to help him. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization 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 11 August 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 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 AR20160010276 3