1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 November 2016 b. Date Received: 29 November 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 and a change to his narrative reason for discharge and to his reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was the result of suffering from Post Stress Traumatic Disorder and alcohol abuse. The applicant contends that during his administrative board hearing it was made known that his patterns of misconduct had occurred in a very short time. It was also supported by character witnesses during his board that this was not the character portrayed in his years of prior service. During the times of his misconduct he was suffering from alcoholism, marital abuse, and PTSD. Both the alcoholism and marital abuse were both mentioned several times in the board and brought up by his chain of command. At the time he had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder and an anxiety disorder although he did not meet the criteria for PTSD due to his lack of outburst in his professional career. He was separated and returned to the states in November 2012. For the next year he struggled with his mental issues and failed marriage; he eventually had a car accident in 2014, in which he was hurt and in ICU for several days. During this time he was charged with a DUI in which his court appointed attorney got him to the VA where he began counseling. He was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse. This has since been upgraded to a higher percentage. He contends it took him a couple of years of both counseling and medication to actually be what he feels is a contributing member of society. During his board several members of his command had brought up issues of how his disciplinary actions had been handled such as why after the incidents he had not been looked at as either a ASAP failure or transfer from the CORP as was directed by the CORP CSM. While he takes responsibility for the actions that led to his misconduct he also has to take responsibility for his pride in keeping him from asking help when he needed it most as he was always looked up to as a Soldier and a person that always got the job done. He believes that at the time that his board was convened the attributing factors to his behavior was overlooked and if he had been properly helped he would have been rehabilitated and been able to continue his military career. While he knows the board is unable to undo his separation he would like to hopefully have his character of service changed and his RE code upgraded so that he may consider serving in other capacities without the suspicion that he is a trouble maker even with all his accomplishments. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. A review of electronic medical records revealed diagnoses of Alcohol Abuse, an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Insomnia, and Marital Problems. Although he screened negative for PTSD, he reported PTSD symptoms that met criteria in other medical notes and this diagnosis has been supported by the VA. In summary, although SM was not diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in service, he exhibited behavioral and emotional changes, to include alcohol abuse, irritability, sadness, anger, sleep problems, emotional numbness, and anxiety, which are consistent with PTSD symptoms attributed to his combat experiences compounded by significant marital stress to include being the victim of domestic violence. Because these behavioral health conditions, can be associated with use of alcohol for self-medication, risk-taking behaviors (DUIs), aggressiveness, impaired judgment, and impulsivity, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. After a thorough review of the entire record and consideration of the medical officer's opine, the ADRB by majority vote, determined that the applicant's medical condition did not overcome the reason for and characterization of the applicant's general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's official military personnel record provides evidence of a pattern of serious misconduct which was found by the ADRB to outweigh any mitigation in support of the applicant's request for an upgrade to an honorable discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 06 September 2016, and by a 4-1 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 November 2012 07 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: being drunk and disorderly, resisting apprehension, disobeying a lawful order, failing to be at his appointed place of duty; Overindulging in intoxicating liquor which cause him to be incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties; Willfully damaging military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $5000; and Physically controlling a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 July 2012, the applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of honorable (5) Administrative Separation Board: 11 September 2012 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 December 2009 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 11 years, 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 24 March 2001 to 11 April 2002 / UNC AFANGUS, 12 April 2002 to 7 July 2002 / NA AFANGUS-ADT, 8 July 2002 to 12 October 2002 / NA AFANGUS, 13 October 2002 to 2 November 2002 / NA AFANGUS-OAD, 3 November 2002 to 15 August 2003 / HD AFANGUS, 16 August 2003 to 28 December 2003 AFANGUS-OAD, 29 December 2003 to 22 July 2005 / HD AFANGUS, 23 July 2005 to 24 July 2005 / HD AFCG, 25 July 2005 to 20 February 2007 / NA RA, 21 February 2007 to 15 December 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Saudi Arabia (7 December 2002 to 2 June 2003) and Iraq (20 March 2008 to 10 June 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AFAM, MUC, AFOUV, AFOUA, AGCM, AFESR-GF, NDSM, AFEM, SWASM, ICM-CS, GWTEM, GWTSM, AFRM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2009 to 28 June 2010, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 29 July 2010, which reflects the applicant was the subject of investigation for drunk driving, traffic accident resulting in damage to host nation and government property-failure to maintain, and failure to obey order or regulation. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2010, for without proper authority, willfully damage, by running off the road and into a guard rail, a 2006 Dodge Durango, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $5000 and physically controlling a vehicle while impaired by alcohol on 29 July 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4 and 45 days extra. FG Article 15, dated 6 December 2011, for being drunk and disorderly, by verbally harassing German law enforcement officials while in the performance of their duties, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces, resisting being apprehended by SGT J.M. an Armed Forces policemen, and disobeying a lawful order from SGT J.M., on 12 November 2011. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,162 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days extra duty and restriction and reduction to E-4 Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 28 February 2012, vacated the suspension of forfeiture of $1,162 pay per month for two months imposed on 6 December 2011. The vacation was based on the following charge of wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drug, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties on 18 December 2011. FG Article 15, dated 7 March 2012, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, and being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties on 18 December 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 March 2012, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for 300.00 Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI which he screen negative for both. The remarks section of the form noted that the applicant's history included multiple examples of impulsivity and poor judgment that included multiple violations of the UCMJ. This can be attributed to the prior coexistence of the disorders Alcohol Abuse, Marital Problem, and Adjustment Disorder. The problems had been complicated and exacerbated by the existence of a variety of unique personality traits and characteristics as well as limited conflict resolution, emotional regulation, and stress management skills. At the time he did not meet criteria for Adjustment Disorder; however, he did meet the diagnostic criteria for Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. The degree of impairment was mild, increasing to moderate in specific, but limited situations. As such, the severity of his disorder did not meet the criteria for administration separation for this conditions as outlined in AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17. Synopsis of Treatment Performance, dated 30 January 2012 and 2 August 2012, relating to him being command-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs show the applicant suffers with several medical issues to include PTSD and depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; mental health documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing the applicant suffers with several medical issues to include PTSD and depression; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 19 October 2015, showing he has been awarded 70 percent service-connected disabilities; character reference letter; and separation packet with character reference letters. 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, and 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." "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 and 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 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was the result of suffering from Post Stress Traumatic Disorder and alcohol abuse. The applicant contends that during his administration board it was made known that his patterns of misconduct had occurred in a very short time. It was also supported by character witnesses during his board that this was not the character portrayed in his years of prior service. During the times of his misconduct he was suffering from alcoholism, marital abuse, and PTSD. Both the alcoholism and marital abuse were both mentioned several times in the board and brought up by his chain of command. At the time he had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder and an anxiety disorder although he did not meet the criteria for PTSD due to his lack of outburst in his professional career. He believes that at the time that his board was convened the attributing factors to his behavior was overlooked and if he had been properly helped he would have been rehabilitated and been able to continue his military career. The applicant's contention were noted; however, the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 March 2012, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for 300.00 Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. However, it was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. Also the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI which he screen negative for both. The fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered with while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. Evidence in the record shows that before initiating discharge proceedings, the applicant's command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. Also, by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant requests a change to his narrative reason for discharge and to his reentry eligibility (RE) code. The appropriated SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for a pattern of misconduct is "JKA" and the RE code is "3." The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. 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. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service 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 06 September 2016, and by a 4-1 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 AR20160018276 3