1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 February 2017 b. Date Received: 21 February 2017 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, that the Board should consider his awards and decorations when considering his upgrade. His DD Form 214 is missing his Marksman Qualification Badge as well as his Distinguished Rifleman Badge. The applicant notes that he helped save a fellow battle buddie's life when he cut both of his wrists in a suicide attempt. The applicant states, he received no recognition for this act. He states, the offense, which served as the basis for his discharge, was extremely inaccurate and very disheartening to him. His leadership stated that he was in possession of "spice," which was false. He was bullied and attacked by SGT S, and it is the applicant belief that the "spice" in question belonged to him and was "planted" in an attempt to get rid of the applicant. SGT S was later found guilty of harassing lower enlisted Soldiers, as well as using multiple drugs including "spice." The applicant states that SGT S was detained by CID and MPs and was sent to serve time in Fort Leavenworth. He strongly believes that he did not have a fighting chance to excel as an exemplary Soldier due to his corrupt and toxic leadership at the time. He begged on several occasions to be transferred out to anywhere because of the circumstances. The applicant states, since his discharge, he has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations, which aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans. He was nominated and awarded "The Hometown Heroes Award" from a local radio station due to his outstanding service to the veteran community and was awarded a car. He has founded his own nonprofit organization "Helping Homeland Heroes," which assists homeless and disabled veterans. Additionally, his organization helps combat PTSD and veteran suicide. He states, his discharge, has been extremely difficult for him and his family as he is from a very long line of highly honorable and decorated distinguished serviceman. He believes because of his discharge, he has failed them and tarnished his name. He was scared to reach out and tell his story because as an Airborne Infantryman he believed this was a sign of weakness, and something that they did not do. He now pleads for his story to be heard and not to fall upon deaf ears. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. SMs electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder, ADHD, Opioid Abuse, and Substance Use Disorder; however, these conditions are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to his early separation. Medical note from 30 August 2012 indicated medical provider refused to prescribe narcotics to SM out of concern that he was drug seeking. Medical note 2 January 2013 indicated medical provider discussed with patient that there was no evidence of his complaints of kidney stones and that he had an unusual amount of blood in his urine. Also multiple providers refused to prescribe him medications after it was found that he had 98 narcotic pills prescribed to him in one month. He later admitted to seeking narcotics to avoid withdrawal symptoms. He was in ASAP from February to May 2013 and then from November 2013 until time of discharge. In summary, SM had a significant history of opioid abuse and dependence. His behavioral and medical conditions are not reasonably related to the offenses leading to his separation. VA medical notes indicate SM has diagnoses of PTSD, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Opioid Use Disorder and has a 70% service connected rating. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 March 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. (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-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 February 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 22 October 2013, he wrongfully solicited PV2 W to urinate in a bottle to help him pass a urinalysis, said conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ On or about 22 October 2013, he wrongfully solicited PV2 D to urinate in a bottle to help him pass a urinalysis, said conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Having received a lawful command from Captain B, his superior commissioned officer, then known to him to be his superior commissioned officer, to not enter or be present in an establishment serving or selling alcohol, or words to that effect, did, at or near Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, on or about 23 November 2013, willfully disobey the same. This was in violation of Article 90, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 February 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 October 2011 / 5 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 /HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 10 December 2013, for wrongfully soliciting PV2 W to urinate in bottle to help him pass a urinalysis (22 October 2013); and, wrongfully soliciting PV2 D to urinate in bottle to help him pass a urinalysis (22 October 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended); forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 24 January 2014, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment was vacated because the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from Captain B, to not purchase, possess, or consume any alcoholic beverages (17 December 2013). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a partial Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 January 2013, which reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant screened positive for PTSD on the screen. The applicant's symptoms were further assessed and his symptoms were related to his current unit stressors and his chapter proceedings (for which the applicant denied all charges/offenses) rather than life threatening events. Thus it was determined that the applicant does not meet criteria for PTSD, however he is following up in the EBH clinic for supportive therapy to improve his current coping abilities. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, with all allied documents listed in the supporting documentation information section of the application; and, documents from his separation packet. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations, which aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans. He was nominated and awarded "The Hometown Heroes Award" from a local radio station due to his outstanding service to the veteran community and was awarded with a car. He has founded his own nonprofit organization "Helping Homeland Heroes," which assists homeless and disabled veterans. Additionally, his organization helps combat PTSD and veteran suicide. 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. 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 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3 The applicant contends, the offense, which served as the basis for his discharge, was extremely inaccurate and very disheartening to him. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that he had toxic leadership, which did not offer any help; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that two of his qualification badges were not reflected on his DD Form 214. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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. Notwithstanding the administrative error, based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 March 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a new DD-214/Issue new Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code to: Change RE code to 3 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 AR20170002777 1