1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 June 2016 b. Date Received: 6 June 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 would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive his education benefits and to help in his attempts to find employment. The applicant contends that he understands his actions did not reflect well on his command, the Army or his family; however, the actions leading to his discharge was a result of his spouse and another member of his command engaging in an extramarital affair. He was subjected to comments in which his manhood was questioned. He was embarrassed and ridiculed by members of his command. In his desperate attempt, he sought the advice and counseling of his command because the situation had become intolerable. His chain of command did not provide him with the assistance he needed. He also sought mental health counseling. Upon his return to the States, he did not recover from the shame, depression and anxiety. He decided to self-medicate himself with cannabis which was a horrible mistake that he regrets. His wife left him with another member of the command, got pregnant and they finally separated. After learning of his former spouse having a baby from her extramarital affair, he once again turned to cannabis to self-medicate to control depression, anxiety and mood swings. He contends he served four years on Active Duty and during this period he was a model Soldier, he was selected for attendance to PLDC as a PFC and his performance was admirable. While deployed he earned several deployments awards to include the AGCM. He loved the military and believes his current separation designation does not reflect the totality of his service as a Soldier, and only reflect a period in which the stress he was under was so intense that it impaired his thinking and decision making process. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the available evidence does not support the idea that PTSD was driving the misconduct that led to his discharge, though his marital problems may have, and that is true even if he is correct in saying he now has PTSD. The applicant has no service-connected disability percentage from the VA noted in JLV. His record is free of psychiatric diagnoses. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 July 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: The applicant's separation documents show his discharge was approved under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, commission of serious offense. The DD Form 214 under review does not reflect what information was listed on the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 relating to the reason, authority, code, and characterization of service. b. Date of Discharge: 2 June 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 May 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: wrongful use of a controlled substance (THC). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 May 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 December 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 September 2005 to 30 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Iraq (29 May 2007 - 13 August 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; IO (Inspection Other), dated on 22 January 2009, which shows the applicant tested positive for THC 45 on 13 January 2009. There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; IR (Inspection Random), dated on 21 March 2009, which shows the applicant tested positive for THC 68 on 11 March 2009. FG Article 15, dated 9 April 2009, for the wrongful use of marijuana (THC) between 12 February 2009 and 11 March 2009. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $929 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days extra duty (25 days suspended), and 60 days restriction (40 days suspended). Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 April 2009, shows the applicant had a mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and meet the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR40-501. A TBI and PTSD screening tool was also completed, they were considered and the conditions were ruled out as causes of the applicant clinical presentation. There was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; copy of his certificated from the Aviation Institute of Maintenance; and a copy of his DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since his discharge he has gone to a technical school where he has earned a certificate in Aviation Maintenance. 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 and 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 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 seeks relief contending his discharge was the result of his inability to control his depression, anxiety and mood swings because of personal/family reasons. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, although the applicant claims he sought help for his medical issues, 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. The Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 April 2009, shows the applicant had a mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and meet the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR40-501. Further, a TBI and PTSD screening tool was also completed, they were considered and the conditions were ruled out as causes of the applicant clinical presentation. There was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. The record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service which included earning of the AGCM. 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 and the applicant is to be commended. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant a characterization of service of honorable at the time of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant contends since his discharge he has earned a certificate in Aviation Maintenance; the applicant post-service accomplishment was noted and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishment. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive his education benefits and to help in his attempts to find employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 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 19 July 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160010760 1