1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 March 2016 b. Date Received: 4 April 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, he excelled at being a Soldier, but his family life took a bad turn. When he joined the Army, he was accused of abandoning his family by his daughter’s mother, an allegation that was completely untrue. The applicant states that although his daughter stayed with his parents on the weekends, his daughter’s mother would not allow him to see his daughter. He became depressed and began to drink, leading to his reckless behavior. The applicant reenlisted to go to Fort Huachuca but prior to his departure, he was charged with driving under the influence (DUI). The applicant never received his orders and as months passed, the applicant states that he became more depressed as he was often teased by his chief about being stuck at Fort Stewart. At that point, the applicant stopped caring about his appearance, the tasks at hand, and the fact that he signed papers that had false charges against him - he just wanted to go home. Since his discharge, the applicant has seen his daughter twice. He will never forget the pride he felt serving his country and is proud to be a veteran, but his goal is to be a veteran that served his country honorably. In a records review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 January 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 May 2001 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a FG Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana (21 February 2001); cited on two separate occasions for DUI, which resulted in a suspension of his driving privileges; received a summarized Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties (5 February 2001); and, counseled in regards to his indebtedness to AAFES. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 May 2001 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 22 May 2001, the applicant was referred to an Administrative Separation Board. On 31 July 2001, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an Administrative Separation Board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 19 November 2001, after consulting with his trial defense attorney, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an Administrative Separation Board. On 28 December 2001, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver and directed the applicant be discharged and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 December 2001 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 April 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31L10, Cable Systems Installer Maintainer / 3 years, 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 September 1998 to 12 April 2000 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 4 October 1999, for stealing a bottle of Hennessey, a value of $4.70 (23 July 1999). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $260 (suspended); and, extra duty for 14 days. MP Report, dated 4 January 2000, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of a controlled substance. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 27 December 2000, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 12 December 2000. CG Article 15, dated 5 February 2001, for dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to guard the barracks (31 January to 1 February 2001). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 21 February 2001, for wrongfully using marijuana (12 December 2000). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $521 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling forms for failing to follow General Order Number 1; sleeping on guard duty; not paying his bills on time; DUI x 2; command directed urinalysis; and, testing positive for marijuana. Personnel Action form, dated 1 May 2001, reflects the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Confinement to Civil Authorities,” effective 26 April 2001. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 24 days total 4 days (NIF, 14 to 18 November 2011) / Unknown 20 days (Confined by Civil Authorities, 26 April to 16 May 2001) / Released j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as 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 general (under honorable conditions). 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, such that he should be retained on active duty. The applicant contends that he had good service. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that he was having family issues and was teased by his chief, which affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that he became depressed, which contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 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 hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 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 AR20160007492 5