IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140018814 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh; based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his periods of combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e., the applicant had a positive screening for PTSD while on active duty; and was later determined by an LMSW at a Vet Center that the circumstances pertaining to alcohol use stemmed from an untreated PTSD diagnosis at the time. The primary diagnosis was PTSD, combined with alcohol use as a central coping mechanism). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that during his career he accomplished a lot in a short amount of time. He was able to obtain the rank of staff sergeant with 6 years and 6 months of service. His problems started occurring after his second back-to-back deployment from Afghanistan. After his second deployment, his relationship with his wife grew worse to the point he drew up papers for legal separation for a divorce. He believes his relationship deteriorated due to using alcohol as self-medication because he was not provided treatment for PTSD and significant sleep issues. After his deployments and the deterioration in his marriage he had a lack of trust within his chain of command. He contends, he would like an upgrade of his discharge because he would like an opportunity to continue his service to his country in the Army National Guard or Reserve. He believes he is a better person with the help and guidance of his VA Counselors and feels he can be a great asset within the Army National Guard or Reserve. The applicant contends, his separation documents state he never received a company grade Article 15 for failure to report, this is false and never happened. He received a Chapter 14-12b and was eligible to receive a Chapter 9; he was never given reasons for why he was not considered for a Chapter 9. He believes all the issues that happened to him started after his back to back deployments; as his family life went so did his mental state. In his medical evaluation, the medical officer gave him a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder w/depressed anxiety in May 2014. In December 2014 his evaluations prior to seeing behavior health showed severe signs of PTSD. He believes if he was correctly diagnosed with PTSD during the medical evaluation he could have been receiving the proper treatment and also could have prevented the further alcohol related incidents and been eligible for a medical board. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 March 2014 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 710th BSB, Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 October 2008, 6 years (the applicant extended his enlistment for 10 months on 11 July 2011) g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 4 months, 22 days h. Total Service: 12 years, 8 months, 14 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR-010623-020819/NA RA-020820-050130/HD RA-050131-061031/HD RA-061101-081014/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-6 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91B30, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic m. GT Score: 111 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia, Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq (030508-040806), Afghanistan (090110-091128 and 110330-120314) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-5, AGCM-3, ACM-w/3CS, NDSM GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-4 NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve 23 June 2001, for a period of eight years pending enlistment in the Regular Army. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 2002, for a period of three years. He reenlisted on 31 January 2005, for a period of four years and again on 1 November 2006, for a period of three years. On 11 July 2011, he extended his reenlistment 10 months. At the time of reenlistment he was 22 years old and a high school graduate. His record indicated he served three tours of combat and served in Korea; achieved the rank of SSG/E-6; and earned several awards to include two ARCOMs, five AAMs, and three AGCMs. He was serving at Fort Drum, NY, when his discharge was initiated. He completed 12 years, 8 months, and 14 days of total military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 3 December 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. being arrested for child endangerment because he left two children (3 year old and 4 year old) under the age of 17, in an extremely dangerous state, due to his severe intoxication (120609), and b. physically controlling a vehicle, to wit; a passenger care, while the alcohol concentration in his breath was 0.14 percent which exceeded the applicable limit. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 10 December 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions; but that the separation be suspended for 12 months. The applicant indicated his intentions to submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 21 January 2014, the applicant consulted with legal counsel again, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf. 5. On 3 February 2014, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 March 2014, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and a RE code of 3. 7. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Memorandum dated 5 June 2013, Synopsis of Rehabilitation Efforts pertaining to the applicant. 2. Military Policy Report dated 9 June 2012, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for endangering the welfare of a child. 3. A court document from the City of Watertown, City of Jefferson, NY, reference the applicant pleading guilty to charges received on 9 June 2012, and being sentenced to fees totaling $200.00. 4. Military Policy Report, dated 27 December 2012, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for unsafely backing a government vehicle and traffic accident. 5. A report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 June 2013, which diagnosed the applicant with alcohol abuse and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Additional comments made indicate the applicant tested positive during a PTSD screening with a score of 3/4 and was referred for a comprehensive PTSD evaluation. The Chief Behavioral Health Psychologist determined the applicant was mentally sound and able to appreciate any wrongfulness in his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. He was considered accountable for his actions and subject to the normal channels of counseling and discipline. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board or other administrative proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for chapter separation. At the time the applicant denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. There was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels IAW AR 40-501, Standard of Medical Fitness. There were no psychiatric symptoms sufficient to require hospitalization, necessitate limitations of duty, or interfere with effective military service. 6. Several negative counseling statements dated between 12 May 2013 and 19 January 2014, for making disparaging gestures and remarks towards a Soldier, failing to perform, failing to follow directions, failing to follow an order, dereliction of duty, violation of the DA Fraternization Policy, and knowingly operating a POV under the influence of alcohol on several occasions. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a self-authored letter, letters from the Watertown Vet Center (2), a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs decision letter, dated 15 October 2014, which indicates the applicant was awarded 70 percent disability for PTSD, copy of his separation packet to include documents from his AMHRR (82 pages). POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant contends he is actively going through treatment with his local Vet Center Counselor for PTSD and group therapy for alcohol; recently started participating in anger management counseling; has been prescribed anti-depressants and sleep medication from his medical provider, and the VA has helped him open up and he is now heading in the right direction with his life. He also states he is attending Colorado Technical University online receiving an Associates of Science in General Studies and following that degree in Business Administration focused on Project Management. He has earned 54 credit hours and has a 4.0 GPA. He is attending a veteran career transition program through Syracuse University to achieve a certification in Project Management. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 5 years, 4 months, and 22 days of a 6-year enlistment (the period of review), thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. He served a total of 11 years, 6 months, and 17 days. b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically two ARCOMs, five AAMs, and three AGCMs, and served three periods of combat. c. Report of Mental Status Evaluation shows the applicant had a positive screening for PTSD while on active duty; and was later determined by an LMSW at a Vet Center that the circumstances pertaining to alcohol use stemmed from untreated PTSD diagnosis at the time. The primary diagnosis was PTSD, combined with alcohol use as a central coping mechanism. d. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments as provided in one of the documents with his application indicates he is actively going through treatment with his local Vet Center Counselor for PTSD and also group therapy for alcohol. He's also being prescribed anti-depressants and sleep medication from his VA medical provider. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and the analyst recommends the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 9 February 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 1. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: a. Vocation Rehabilitation Program Plan (2 pages) b. College transcripts (2 pages) 2. The applicant presented no additional contentions. In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140018814 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1