01. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 January 2016 b. Date Received: 1 February 2016 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 had just returned from Iraq when he had engaged in the use of drugs. It was unknown to him that he had PTSD, which was later diagnosed by the VA. The applicant believes the PTSD caused him to act the way he did and engage in the use of drugs. Prior to his experience in Iraq, he was promoted to E-3 in a very short time. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is no nexus between PTSD and the offense of theft. As PTSD is associated with the use of illicit drugs for self-medication, there is a nexus between his PTSD and the illicit use of Valium and Amphetamine. PTSD is considered to be mitigating for these offenses. Both the military electronic medical record (AHLTA) and the VA electronic medical record (JLV) were reviewed. There is no information regarding any Behavioral Health symptoms or diagnoses in AHLTA. The VA medical record indicates the applicant is 60 percent service-connected, 50 percent of which is for PTSD from his combat experiences in Iraq. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 20 March 2017, and by a 5- 0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent Social Security disability and 60 percent from VA for PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 December 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 November 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully used valium in a time of war (21 August 2003); stole property of AAFES (8 February 2004); and submitted a urine sample, which tested positive for amphetamines (24 August 2004). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 November 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 9 November 2004 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 December 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 June 2002 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (8 April 2003 to 20 April 2003), Iraq (20 April 2003 to 24 March 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, CMB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 24 September 2003, for wrongfully using valium (21 August 2003), during time of war. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty. CG Article 15, dated 23 February 2004, for stealing the property of AAFES (8 February 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $278, and 14 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 June 2004, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 10 September 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for amphetamine during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 24 August 2004. Negative counseling statements for providing a positive urinalysis and receiving a FG Article 15 while in Iraq. FG Article 15, dated 17 November 2004, for wrongfully using amphetamine (between 16 August 2004 and 24 August 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $596 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical records, dated 8 April 2016, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; and medical records, dated 8 April 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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, and 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 on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues causing his drug abuse issues were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post- traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention: Change narrative reason for discharge to medical disability. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 20 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. 100 percent Social Security disability and 60 percent from VA for PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160003194 1