1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 July 2015 b. Date Received: 3 August 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, after he returned from Afghanistan, he started to drink to cope with what he had witnessed while deployed. He saw IED explosions and people hurt or killed. After being counseled and put into an ETOH program, he was discharged. He believes that had he been allowed to continue in the program he could have been a better Soldier and retained on active duty. Since his discharge, he is now married and has a child. Additionally, he has obtained employment and has not had any arrests or alcohol related problems. He attended AA meetings and completed all the courses and has been sober. 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 which led to his separation from the Army. Military electronic medical records were reviewed. The applicant screened negative for PTSD and mTBI. His problem drinking behaviors preceded his deployment to Afghanistan. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 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: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully consumed alcohol while under the age of 21 years and failed to go to his appointed place of duty (3 June 2013); and, was found sleeping at his post at or near Combat Outpost Zormat, Afghanistan (20 January 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 23 August 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 7 June 2011 / 3 years and16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 2 months, and 29 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (dates NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWTSM, ASR, NATO Medal g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Four DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 21 January 2013 and 5 June 2013, for: Failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; dereliction of duty, illegal consumption of alcohol and intent to separate from service. FG Article 15, dated 25 January 2013, for sleeping while being a sentinel on post (o/a 20 January 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $849.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 14 days and an oral reprimand. DA Forms 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 5 June 2013, reflects 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. CG Article 15, dated 11 June 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (o/a 3 June 2013); and, for wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of twenty one years (o/a 3 June 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $353.00 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 30 July 2015. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Successfully completed AA courses, is sober, and has obtained employment. 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 available/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 began drinking to cope from the things that he saw while deployed. Ultimately, this behavior led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of any disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has been employed and has completed AA courses. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on 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 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 9 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 AR20150013026 1