1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2015 b. Date Received: 15 June 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, he would like to receive his full GI Bill benefits. The applicant contends that he in March 2013, he sought help from behavioral health due to the many issues he had at home. He was diagnosed with anxiety disorder. The applicant started following his appoints, complying with group therapy, successfully finished anger management at Family Advocacy, and taking his daily medication. The applicant contends that he brought informed his commander of his situation and how his medication and group therapy improved his mental condition. The applicant requested to continue serving his country; however, his request was denied. As of today, the applicant states he is a better citizen, husband, father, and that he and his wife have an extraordinary marriage. 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 his acts of spousal abuse and violation of a no contact order. A review of the applicant's file and electronic medical records found a diagnosis of Anxiety disorder which failed retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 on the MEB narrative summary from 13 August 2013. The mental status evaluation report from 20 May 2013 had an Axis I Diagnoses of Chronic Adjustment Disorder. He was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence. Alcohol Dependence can be associated with driving while intoxicated and may have been associated with the charge of failure to report for duty. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 November 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Drove while intoxicated (30 November 2012); Assaulted his spouse (1 December 2012 and 6 May 2013); Threatened to stab his wife with a pencil and throw acid in her face (5 May 2013); Violated a Military Protective Order issued by CPT D.K. to have no contact with his spouse (7 May 2013); and, Failed to report to duty (1 and 2 December 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 November 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally Waived, 25 November 2013 (contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less than honorable) (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 4 April 2014 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2009 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 27 / GED / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 7 years, 1 month, and 25 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 26 November 2007 – 9 October 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 January 2009 – 25 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, NDSM, GWTSM, ICM-CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 30 November 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended and transported to the Provost Marshall Office for driving under the influence of alcohol on post. DA From 7569 (Investigative Activity Summary), dated 5 December 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation of a domestic disturbance on 2 December 2012. DD Form 2873 (Military Protective Order), dated 7 May 2013, reflects the applicant’s company commander directed to him to make no contact with the protected person in block 2 (Ms. B.J.S.) by phone, email, personal contact or contact through a third party, except through himself or a third party approved by the commander. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 6 February 2013, for being apprehended by military law enforcement officials on Joint Base Lewis-McChord for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) reflects that on 20 February 2014 a board convened to review the applicant’s case file and to determine if the applicant would be retained in the military or discharged prior to the expiration of his service obligation. The findings of the Administrative Separation Board was not found in the case separation file. Memorandum, dated 4 March 2014, Subject: Legal Review of Administrative Separation Board, authored by the Administrative Law Attorney, reflects that he found the Board’s proceedings to be legally sufficient. The Board recommended that the applicant be separated with a general, under honorable conditions. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 20 May 2013, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 8 June 2015; DD Form 214; Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) medical documents, dated between 10 July 2013 and 7 August 2013; MAMC Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, dated 13 August 2013; and page 2 of DA Form 3947, dated 30 August 2013. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is a better citizen, husband, father, and that he and his wife have an extraordinary marriage. 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 states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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 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. 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 15 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 AR20150010501 5