1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 31 March 2015 b. Date Received: 6 April 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he does not believe the discharge he received accurately reflects his time in service. He states, he was a great Soldier that encountered a few mistakes that he is still paying for. The applicant contends that if he was given the chance and medical treatment, he could have corrected his behavior. Since leaving the service, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar disorder as a result of incidents that occurred while he was deployed. The applicant now plays football for the El Paso Seminoles and volunteers his time at elementary schools, churches, food kitchens, and anti-drug rallies. These activities have greatly impacted his life and if he could even help one person better themselves, he has succeeded. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health diagnosis for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2016, and by a 5-0 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: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 January 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 October 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was convicted at a Summary Court-Martial for disobeying a lawful order from a NCO, disrespect towards a senior NCO, violation of general order, wrongfully possessed marijuana while receiving special pay under 37 U.S. C. § 310 and assault. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Declined, 3 October 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 3 October (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 16 October 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 16 May 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / NIF / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, and 15 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 25 March 2004 - 15 May 2006 / HD (Of note, the applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects “Member has not completed first full term of service.”) e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 February 2006 – 19 November 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 15 January 2006 and 4 August 2006, for wrongful use of a controlled substance (marijuana), disobeying a direct order, and disrespecting a noncommissioned officer. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 13 August 2006, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Articles 91,112a, and 128. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial (DD Form 2329), dated 22 September 2006, reflects the following: Charge I: Violation of Article 91, UCMJ Specification 1, Disobeyed a lawful order from SFC D, o/a 4 July 2006. Plea: Guilty, Finding: Guilty Specification 2, Disrespectful language toward SFC D, o/a 4 July 2006. Plea: Guilty, Finding: Guilty Charge II: Violation of Article 92, UCMJ Specification: Violated a general order, by wrongfully using marijuana o/a 10 June 2006, Plea: Not Guilty, Finding: Guilty Charge III: Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ Specification: Wrongfully possessed an unknown amount of marijuana, o/a 10 June 2006. Plea: Not Guilty, Finding: Guilty Charge IV: Violation of Article 128, UCMJ Specification: Assaulted SPC J.V. with his hand and foot, o/a 4 July 2006. Plea: Guilty, Finding: Guilty Sentence: Reduction to E-1; and, forfeiture of $915.00 pay. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Emergence Health Network Letter, dated 16 March 2015, reflects the applicant received services for Bipolar Disorder (18 July 2014 -23 September 2014). Social Security Administration Disability Determination and Transmittal, dated 8 May 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Affective/Mood disorders. Two DA Forms 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 August 2006 and 14 December 2006, reflect the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Occupational Problems and Familial Stressors. The applicant was previously diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and presented traces of Antisocial Personality Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 31 March 2015; Emergence Health Network letter, dated 16 March 2015; Social Security Administration Disability Determination and Transmittal, dated 8 May 2015; associated medical records; and two letters of support. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant plays football for the El Paso Seminoles; and, volunteers his time at the elementary schools, churches, food kitchens, and Anti-drug rallies. 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(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 an upgrade of his other than 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. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included a combat tour. 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 he was diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar disorder post-service. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did provide evidence he had received medical services for Bipolar disorder. However, the evidence provided by the applicant did not support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has played football and volunteered throughout his community. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. 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 26 August 2016, and by a 5-0 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150006118 1