1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 February 2013 b. Date Received: 27 April 2015 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, an upgrade will allow him to continue his education. The applicant states that he was truly motivated by the fact that the quality of service that he gave while in the military would be reciprocated based on the caliber of his overall performance. The applicant contends that, while in combat, his chain of command vividly displayed a desperate treatment to select Soldiers/individuals assigned throughout the unit/command. The outward displays of favoritism, both gender and racial, was brought to the attention of countless members of the senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers within the unit. The chain of command lacked the compassion and leadership skills needed to deal with his deterioration of his morale and physical and emotional state that he experienced, due to the loss of his brother, while deployed. The applicant contends that those who were in his chain of command, had they considered all the facts and had not been biased in their views despite his constant effort to help himself, the type of discharge granted would have been under “Honorable” conditions. Since his discharge, the applicant has been under the care of the VA medical system/personnel and was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder Grief Reaction and Clinical Depression. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there was likely a nexus between this this applicant's behavioral health conditions and the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The applicant received a diagnosis of Depression while in theater in November 2011. He was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence with episodic drinking behavior while on Active Duty. He was also diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with alcohol dependence by the VA. Because Alcohol Dependence is frequently associated with alcohol related incidences, the offenses which led to this applicant's discharge were likely related to his history of Depression and Alcohol Dependency. After a thorough review of the entire record and consideration of the medical officer's opine conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2016, the ADRB by unanimous vote, determined that the applicant's medical condition did not overcome the reason for and characterization of the applicant's general, under honorable conditions discharge. The record shows that on 17 May 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. Furthermore, the record provides evidence of two alcohol-related incidents (2x DUI/DWI) prior to the applicant’s deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant's post-service Major Depressive Disorder with Alcohol Dependency diagnosis, although a potential mitigating factor in his pattern of misconduct was not found by the ADRB to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant the applicant's request for an upgrade to an honorable discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 May 2012 [sic] (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Operated a vehicle while drunk (19 December 2010); Found drunk on duty, violated a lawful general order, and made a false official statement (22 November 2011); Drunk and disorderly, willfully and wrongfully damaged personal property of another Soldier (29 January 2012); Drunk and disorderly (15 February 2012); Failed to report to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions (23 and 24 January 2012, 12 February 2012, 22 March 2012, and 4 May 2012); and, Incapacitated for duty as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor (3 May 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 21 May 2012 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 15 June 2009 / 4 years and 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, and 23 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (20 February 2011 – 14 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: MUC, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO Medal g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 29 December 2010, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence – 2nd offense (off post) and was transported to the Montgomery County Jail. (Per Commander’s Report) FG Article 15, dated 2 August 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $366.00 pay per month for two months (suspended). DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 22 December 2011, states the applicant lost his older brother on June 25th of that year and was diagnosed with depression by mental health. Counseling by Mental Health diagnosis with depression after brother past away recently June 2011. Memorandum for Record, dated 15 February 2012, Subject: Authorization for Intoxlyzer, written by the company commander, reflects the Soldier was intoxicated on duty. Military Police Report, dated 22 February 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended had become unruly and non-compliant of orders from his chain of command; therefore, was apprehended and transported to the MP Station. Memorandum for Record, dated 3 May 2012, Subject: Authorization for Intoxlyzer, written by the company commander, reflects the Soldier was intoxicated on duty. Administrative Orders Based on Misconduct, dated 4 May 2012, reflects the following privileges were suspended by the company commander as a result of the applicant being drunk on duty, failing to obey orders or regulations, and failing to report: Revocation of Pass Privileges; Sign-Out Order – the applicant was required to sign out if he intends to leave the company area for more than 15 minutes; No Driving and no Alcohol. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 17 May 2012, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. Numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling) for multiple violations of the UCMJ and continuous misconduct. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Health Record Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 13 March 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder Grief Reaction. VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 16 January 2013, reflects the applicant was assigned a 70 percent evaluation for Major Depressive Disorder with Alcohol Dependency. VA Entitlements Letter, dated 22 January 2013, reflects the applicant was assigned a 70 percent service-connected disability of 70 percent for Major Depressive Disorder with Alcohol Dependency. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 1 February 2013; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; and the following: VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 16 January 2013; VA Entitlements Letter, dated 22 January 2013; Health Record Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 13 March 2012 (9 pages); and, Medication information paper (2 pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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 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. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to continue his education. 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 he was highly motivated and had good service, which included a deployment to Afghanistan. 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 contends that the chain of command had outward displays of favoritism, both gender and racial, which was brought to the attention of countless members of the senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers within the unit. However, the applicant 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 his chain of command did not consider all the facts and was biased in their views, despite his constant effort to help himself. 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 the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for Adjustment Disorder Grief Reaction and Clinical Depression. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 17 May 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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 20 July 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: 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: NA 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 AR20150007681 6