1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 January 2016 b. Date Received: 4 February 2016 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, that he needs an upgrade to receive VA benefits for his PTSD, hearing loss and sleep loss. The applicant raised no issues of impropriety or equity for the Board's consideration. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. There are no medical records available in support of the applicant's contention of PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 April 2017, 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: 22 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 20 January 2005, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Articles 86 and 112a. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL (with two specifications) (20 April to 29 July 2004 and from 30 July to 17 November 2004) Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a, wrongful use of marijuana (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2010 (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 13 April 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 September 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 5 years, 10 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 September 1998 to 22 September 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (26 February 2003 to 26 February 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c(2). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 2 September 2004, investigations determined the applicant sabotaged vehicles during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Intentionally removed wires and the vehicles became non-mission capable in a hostile fire zone. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 19 November 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 30 (marijuana), during an Command Directed (CO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 19 November 2004. (Note: Appears to have been erroneously coded, see paragraph 8 below.) Three Developmental Counseling Forms for AWOL; restriction and, removal of restriction. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed from from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 20 April 2004 and from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 17 November 2004. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 210 days (AWOL, 20 April 2004 to 16 November 2004) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow VA benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits do 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 he suffers from stress due to his PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Although liberal consideration is to be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, or 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, the applicant has provided no evidence, and has highlighted no evidence, to support a reasonable inference that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge. The applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy normally applies to tests coded in this manner, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence of record reflects the applicant was apprehended after allegedly trying to steal a privately owned vehicle and while in an AWOL status. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for "Inspection Other" (inspections based on command/unit policy) instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." This inference is supported by the fact that the command, in consultation with its servicing Staff Judge Advocate's Office, charged the applicant with wrongful drug use based upon the urinalysis in question. It is very doubtful the command would swear to a UCMJ charge if it knew the test results would be inadmissible under the Military Rules of Evidence. If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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 April 2017, 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 / Issue a New Separation Order: 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: 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 AR20160003629 1