1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 September 2016 b. Date Received: 26 September 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 pertinent part and in effect, he takes responsibility, as well as, the repercussions of his actions. His lack of experience did not help with some of his hasty decision-making. His personal issues are documented, an insight of what the doctors presented, as his next hurdle in life. He has pride in having performed his job to the fullest. (The applicant refers to his PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) proceedings.) Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant with diagnosis of a severe mental illness, specifically Bipolar Affective Disorder (BAD) I. Due to the complexity of his presentation, it would not be feasible to state that his "medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause" of his misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post- service diagnoses of behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable condition. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 November 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He received a GOMOR on 6 February 2013, for suspicion of driving under the influence, which was filed in his OMPF on 2 May 2013. He received his second GOMOR on 3 April 2013, for suspicion of driving under the influence, which was filed in his OMPF on 29 May 2013. He was convicted in Magistrate Court in the Western District of Washington on 6 May 2013, for negligent driving in the first degree and driving while under the influence of alcohol. He was confined from 21 May 2013 to 14 June 2013, resulting from the 6 May 2013 conviction. He was arrested on 23 April 2013, and charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest. He failed to report to his ASAP appointments on 15 November 2012, 3 July 2013, and 17 July 2013. He failed to report to a work detail on 19 September 2013, and accountability formation on 20 September 2013. He was also disrespectful in language towards two NCOs and communicated a threat to an NCO on 20 September 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 December 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 6 February 2014, the board recommended Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 March 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (The GCMCA, based on reviewing the medical evaluation board proceedings, determined the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that led to the recommendation for an administrative separation.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 November 2010 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 19K10, R4 M1 Armor Crewman / 3 years, 3 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: MP Report, dated 27 October 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a general order; driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, negligent driving, and motor vehicle accident (MVA). MP Report, dated 5 December 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a general order, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, negligent driving, and motor vehicle accident (MVA). Negative counseling statements for failing to follow instructions; missing his appointments with ASAP clinic; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; being insubordinate towards and NCO; driving under the influence of drugs; negligent driving; and failing to obey general order. Four DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions) documented the following changes to the duty status of the applicant: from PDY to Civilian Confinement, effective 23 April 2013; from civil confinement to PDY, effective 24 April 2013; from PDY to civil confinement, effective 21 May 2013; and from civil confinement to PDY, effective 14 June 2013. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 6 February 2013, indicates the application was reprimanded for driving under the influence of drugs. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 3 April 2013, indicates the application was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol. Civilian court documents showing judgment and sentencing, scheduled hearings, plea agreements, judgment in criminal case, and schedule of payments. MP Report, dated 17 February 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a general order, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and negligent driving second degree. Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers with its transcript indicates that the board which convened on 6 February 2014, found by preponderance of evidence that the applicant did demonstrate a pattern of misconduct, and that he demonstrated a longstanding pattern of misconduct which included numerous instances of failing to report to unit formations and to established appointments, two DUI incidents, and an arrest by civilian law enforcement for the charge of trespassing. The board recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Several Memoranda, dated 3 March 2014, indicate the applicant's ETS date of 20 March 2014, was approved to be extended to 20 September 2014, for the purpose of completing his medical board. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 25 days (Civil Confinement: 23 April 2013, and 21 May 2013 to 13 June 2013) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 July 2013, indicates the applicant had an "AXIS I" diagnosis of "Bi-Polar DO with Mixed Emotional Features," and Reports of Medical Examination and History, dated 25 May 2013, indicate the examiner noted the applicant was hospitalized for three weeks in November 2012, for bipolar disorder. Applicant's documentary evidence: Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 3 May 2013, shows disability for "Bipolar disorder (MEB Dx 1)." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 21 September 2016; Statement in Support of Claim, dated 21 September 2016; Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 3 May 2013; supporting statement, dated 20 September 2016; and Social Services Assistance Coordinator supporting statement, undated. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. Although the applicant refers to his PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) proceedings as basis for his request for an upgrade, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. Furthermore, a careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant provided reference that they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. The record of evidence shows the separation authority considered the medical evidence, and determined that was not the case. The Board is not bound by the separation authority's finding in that regard, and can review that determination. 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 third party statements provided with the application render support on behalf of the applicant were carefully considered. However, the persons providing the character reference and supporting statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. 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 his 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 29 November 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable condition. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20160019588 1