1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 November 2016 b. Date Received: 10 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while he was serving in the military, he did not receive any type of disciplinary action or have any conflicts. He arrived at his duty station as a PVT and quickly moved to SPC within a year. The main reason for such an abrupt ascension in rank was because of his combat duty that he fulfilled in Iraq. While deployed, they had many cooks, so he was asked to be a gunner on convoy security. He went on various missions and successfully provided security for his peers and it resulted in minimal injury and death. Later, he was moved to the tactical operation center, wherein he assisted his peers by over watching all missions. When he redeployed, he told therapists that he had trouble sleeping and outbursts of anger, but nothing was done for him. He ended up buying something from the gas station to help him sleep, but apparently the product had just been deemed illegal on post and as a result, he ended up getting in trouble. During this time, they were transitioning from deployment and starting to assume their daily roles in garrison. His entire unit either permanently changed duty assignments or retired and he now had a new first sergeant and new company and brigade commanders. This was the first time he had ever been in trouble in his military career, but the new management was fixated on making an example of him to show their lack of tolerance to the rest of the unit. He states, he had various written recommendations from Soldiers of all ranks, but his packet was sent up without them and his brigade commander had already made his decision based on the packet. He was told he could get a chance to stay in the Army after his punishment, which required him to work 45 days straight from 5 AM to 11 PM. He did not complain or lose his military bearing. He worked hard to show that one mistake did not make a person. After his 45 days were up, he found out the packet was sent up without his letters from his subordinates. He told the sergeant major and who insisted that they had sent his packet back up with the documents, but it was too late and the commander had already made a decision. After he was discharged, six other Soldiers from his brigade were discharged for one time offenses. He states, in the 5 years since his discharge, he has not received so much as a speeding ticket. His clean civilian record reflects that one mistake does not make a person. When he got out of the service, he applied his core values to civilian life and it has helped him progress very well. He desires the upgrade to allow him to go to school. He has a three year old daughter and he wants to be able to provide for her and teach her new things so that she may see him as a hero. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the reasons leading to an early separation. SMs electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of Alcohol Abuse, Cannabis Abuse, and an Occupational Problem. Post service-SM does have a diagnosis of PTSD from the VA, but does not have a percentage rating. In summary, because PTSD can be associated with use of alcohol and substances for self-medication, risk-taking behaviors, impulsivity and impaired judgment, there is a nexus between this applicant's misconduct (use of spice) and his behavioral health symptoms. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 February 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service OBH diagnosis and post-service, VA diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He violated a lawful general order, dated 29 April 2010, signed by LTG J, by possessing spice. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 April 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 May 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 November 2009 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 August 2008 - 10 November 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 July 2009 - 5 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 11 February 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Failure to obey general order (wrongful use of PEP Spice) (On Post); and, Failure to obey general order (wrongful possession of PEPE Spice) (On Post). Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 March 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process. FG Article 15, dated 23 March 2011, for violating a lawful general order, by wrongfully possessing spice (11 February 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he applies the core values that he learned in the Army and has maintained a clean civilian record. 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. 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 that his character statements were not considered by the separation authority prior to making his decision to separate him from the service. However, 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 applicant's separation packet includes several character statements and all were dated prior to the separation authority's decision. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment to provide for his daughter. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 9 February 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service OBH diagnosis and post- service, VA diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160018662 1