1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 October 2016 b. Date Received: 27 October 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he served in the United States Army for 11 years. During that time he served honorably in Hawaii for eight years with the 25ID. He deployed a total of three times; two times to Iraq and once to Afghanistan. All three deployments were served in Infantry companies. After his third deployment he was sent to St. Cloud, Minnesota on recruiting orders. In September of 2015, two years after moving to Minnesota he was charged with domestic assault. He spent the next month at the VA for alcohol treatment. While in the VA he was diagnosed with PTSD and spent an additional two months in treatment for PTSD which he had been using alcohol to cope. He contends his PTSD was directly related to the combat from his deployments. His wife at the time noticed that he was having problems dealing with things to include anger, he could not see it nor did he want to acknowledge his change so he never went for treatment. He contends his PTSD symptoms led to the domestic assault. Since then he has been treated for PTSD and learned how to cope without alcohol. The civilian courts granted a stay of adjudication; however the Army found that his actions were not becoming of a noncommissioned officer. He has not had any further legal issues. He believes he served honorably until his PTSD which was related to his combat duty changed who he was and how he behaved; therefore for these reasons he believes his discharge should be upgraded. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based upon the information available at the time, the applicant has AHLTA diagnoses of Alcoholism, Alcoholism in Remission, Marital Problem. He was seen for a CDE on 09 September 2015 after a physical altercation with his wife while intoxicated. The assault led to his arrest. At that time the applicant identified 4 areas of concern: Anger, Legal, Relationship, and Alcohol Dependence. In that evaluation he tested negative for PTSD and TBI, though he discussed his combat experiences during the CDE. The CDE evaluator specifically rejected PTSD as a correct diagnosis at that time, i.e., at the time of the applicant's misconduct over the assault on his wife. On the 15 September 2015, he was diagnosed as "Alcohol Dependent." On 10 November 2015 he was reportedly diagnosed as having PTSD by the VA IP program. On 09 December 2015, an AHLTA note indicated he had finished his alcohol treatment program and was in the 2nd week of a PTSD program; however, the applicant's command was projecting a Chapter 14 because the assault on his wife was a "felony event." He had a Chapter 14 Mental Status Exam on 10 February 2016. He also was again negative on screens for PTSD and TBI. He was also judged to meet Medical Retention Standards. The examiner also concluded that, even if the applicant has PTSD (contrary to his testing), he should not be referred for an MEB. The examiner diagnosed Alcohol Dependence, uncomplicated. JLV did not show any contacts with VA or JLV ratings; however, it is known the applicant has had VA contacts as he has completed VA programs for alcohol and for PTSD. The preponderance of evidence does not show that PTSD caused the assault on the applicant's wife. It appeared from the records they had a history of marital problems and that he had a long history of drinking. He was also described as drunk when he assaulted his wife. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 September 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 April 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 11 years d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 August 2005 to 10 February 2009 / HD RA, 11 February 2009 to 23 November 2011 / HD RA, 24 November 2011 to 31 March 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (7 August 2006 to 15 October 2007 and 20 October 2008 to 26 October 2009) and Afghanistan (1 April 2011 to 28 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM-3, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-4, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 15 August 2014 to 14 August 2015, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application to include signature page and email requesting extension for providing PTSD information. 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." "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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant seeks relief contending, he served in the United States Army honorably for 11 years; which consisted of being deployed a total of three times; two times to Iraq and once to Afghanistan with an infantry company. He contends his discharge was the result of alcohol and PTSD related issues. His wife at the time noticed that he was having problems dealing with things to include anger, he could not see it nor did he want to acknowledge his change so he never went for treatment. He contends his PTSD symptoms led to the domestic assault. Since then he has been treated for PTSD and learned how to cope without alcohol. He believes he served honorably until his PTSD which was related to his combat duty changed who he was and how he behaved; therefore, for these reasons he believes his discharge should be upgraded. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support a change to the characterization of service granted. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official 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 15 September 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20160016906 1