1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2016 b. Date Received: 23 June 2016 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The counsel on behalf of the applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant's discharge is inequitable based on the combination of his quality of service and his capability to serve. Specifically, the applicant’s diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) contributed to his pattern of mental-behavior related misconduct at the end of his service. His PTSD condition, in combination with his strong record for much of his service including the receipt of a Purple Heart, are mitigating circumstances that justify an upgrade to an honorable discharge. (The counsel referenced an attached brief that explains the issue in greater detail which was presented at an initial application for discharge review.) Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, The applicant has suffered and continues to suffer from multiple psychiatric problems that have complicated his life. His psychiatric impairments mitigate the misconduct that led to his Court-Martial in 2010. The applicant has an extensive mental-health history. His first known psychiatric diagnoses in his Army electronic medical record occur no later than 2007, though it is likely he had difficulties well before then. His diagnoses include disorders related to depression and anxiety. His diagnostic history also includes disorders related to an anxiety such as irritable bowel syndrome and impotence. Further, he had PTSD diagnosed and treated while in the Army on active duty. PTSD is also included in his VA problem list in his VA electronic medical record, and he has received both inpatient and outpatient treatment for it from the VA, where he has a 70 percent disability rating. It is not uncommon for persons with the applicant’s level of anxiety, depressive, and PTSD symptoms to turn to drink for relief. The applicant has had difficulties with drink and some of his misconduct, stealing from a bar and drunk driving, have a direct relation to his reliance on drink. Further complicating his life is a personality disorder that is on his VA problem list, but was also on his AHLTA problem list. No specific personality disorder is listed; however, based on available records, it seems he has a personality organization that is marked by low frustration tolerance, a preference for action over thought, a limited ability to inhibit spontaneous antisocial impulses, and rage at effort to impose authority on him. His life since the army has also been marked by financial problems and housing problems. On the basis of his impaired mental status, I support his discharge being upgraded to honorable. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 December 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of combat-related PTSD), and his post-service VA disability rating. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: violated the UCMJ, Article 89, by being disrespectful towards CPT H and 1LT M, superior commissioned officers (11 February 2010 and 16 November 2010); violated the UCMJ, Article 128, by assaulting Mr. R by punching his face with a closed fist (24 December 2008), assaulting a behavioral health staff member by spitting on them (2 November 2010), and assaulting SPC S by pushing him with both of his hands and causing him to collide into a doorway (16 November 2010); violated the UCMJ, Article 86, by leaving his appointed place of duty on three separate occasions (19 November 2009, 21 March 2010, and 16 November 2010) and by failing to report to duty on three separate occasions (13 March 2010), 20 July 2010, and 3 November 2010); violated the UCMJ, Article 91, by being insubordinate towards SFC Y and SGT H, noncommissioned officer on two separate occasions (27 October 2010 and 10 November 2010); violated the UCMJ, Article 111, by driving while intoxicated on two separate occasions with a blood alcohol content of 0.188 G/rnl (6 June 2010) and 0.058 G/ml (26 January 2009); violated the UCMJ, Article 92, by being derelict in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to maintain the unit property book (17 December 2009) and by failing to lead physical training at Rose Barracks, Germany (19 November 2009); violated the UCMJ, Article 134, by communicating a threat to then PFC H by saying "I'm a Staff Sergeant and I'm going to fuck you up later" (24 December 2008); violated the UCMJ, Article 121, by committing a larceny against bar "No Name" located in Vilseck, Germany, by walking out of the bar without paying a bar tab, of a value less than $500.00 (24 December 2008); and, violated the UCMJ, Article 122, by committing a robbery against Ms. G by ripping a necklace off her neck, of a value less than $500.00 (24 December 2008). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF, although the applicant requested personal appearance before an administrative separation board, there is no further information regarding a referral to a separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 September 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / 13 years / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 9 years, 2 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 March 2002 to 20 September 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (12 March 2003 to 12 March 2004 and 1 November 2004 to 1 November 2005), f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-3CS, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: Four NCOERs rendered during period under current review: 1 August 2007 thru 31 January 2008, Fully Capable 1 February 2008 thru 31 January 2009, Fully Capable 16 June 2009 thru 24 January 2010, Fully Capable 25 January 2010 thru 15 May 2010 (RFC), Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 May 2010 (with its associated documents), for leaving his place of duty without authority (19 November 2009), behaving with disrespect towards his superior commissioned officer (11 February 2010), and being derelict in the performance of his duties (18 November 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,380 (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty. FG Article 15, dated 23 September 2010, for DWI (6 June 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,146 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and 30 days of restriction. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 November 2010 (with its associated documents), for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and causing a traffic accident. Report of Result of Trial, indicates the applicant, upon being found guilty of the following charges by a Special Court-Martial on 27 January 2011, received a sentence of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $978 pay per month for two months, and 60 days of confinement: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for leaving his place of duty without authority on 16 November 2010. Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 89, for behaving disrespectful in language towards 1LT M, his superior commissioned officer on 16 November 2010. Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO on 10 November 2010. Charge IV: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, for assaulting SPC S on 16 November 2010. Special Court-Martial Order 9, dated 29 June 2011, promulgated the aforementioned charges, its findings, and the approval of the adjudged sentence, and a credit of 24 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 25 days (Military Confinement, 28 January 2011 to 21 February 2011) / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 November 2010, provided a diagnosis of “Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified,” and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Report of Medical History, dated 14 April 2011, shows the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 6 May 2011, shows diagnosis of (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder with Depressed mood, by history: Alcohol Abuse; Adult Antisocial Behavior. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Applicant’s documentary evidence consisting of health records and VA letter presents numerous references of his PTSD and behavioral health issues diagnoses. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; two legal briefs, dated 20 June 2016 and 20 January 2014 and exhibits listed within the legal briefs. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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 to upgrade 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 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 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 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 14-12b is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is JKA. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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’s contentions regarding his PTSD and behavioral health diagnoses 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. 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 December 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of combat-related PTSD), and his post-service VA disability rating. 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. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board 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 AR20160011145 7