1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 June 2015 b. Date Received: 8 June 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of the discharge proceedings, he had already received a 40 percent disability rating. The applicant states that he still needs regular treatment, but has not been able to receive his combat-related VA benefits. 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 conditions for the offenses. Applicant was in the MEB process for an ankle injury. No behavioral health concerns noted on the Report of Medical History dated 2 March 2014. Mental Status Examination was indicative of Opioid Dependence. Seen by behavioral health from 2011-2013 for an Adjustment Disorder due to family and marital problems and FAP for anger management. The applicant reported in note date 14 January 2014 that he was pending MEB for ankle and PTSD symptoms (per SM based on dx on VA side). Participated in ASAP to include a detox inpatient hospitalization March 2014. Note from June indicated the applicant was still using substances. He was considered an ASAP failure and declined further treatment prior to separation. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200 / Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, on 16 May 2014. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107, wrongful use of cocaine (between on or about 10 and 15 January 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 28 May 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 19 December 2008 / 4 years / Extended two months on 1 April 2013. The applicant was later extended on active duty for the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-5 / 11B10, Infantryman / 7 years, 7 days, and 20 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 24 October 2006 - 18 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 May 2007 - 31 December 2007), Afghanistan (7 June 2009 - 28 May 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATO Medal, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2010 – 31 December 2010, Among The Best 1January 2011 – 31 May 2011, Marginal 31 May 2011 – 30 May 2012, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Three DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 18 March 2014 and 25 March 2014, for being flagged for substandard performance, wrongful use of cocaine, and the initiation of separation proceedings. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 25 April 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 107. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 25 March 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Opioid Dependence. He could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was in the MEB process for possible chapter/separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 4 June 2015; DD Form 214; and a letter of support, dated 4 June 2015. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered 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 under 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. The applicant contends he should have been medically discharged; however, 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. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow medical benefits through the VA. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical benefits 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 third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant’s performance. The letter recognized his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 7 September 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 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150010005 5