1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 June 2016 b. Date Received: 10 June 2016 c. Counsel/Representative: 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 was treated unfairly. He was given the wrong type of discharge that, coincidentally, was three days prior to his regular ETS date. He was diagnosed with PTSD and treated for the condition while in service. His PTSD led to his behavioral issues and subsequently, he was disciplined by his chain of command and forced out of the Army. He meets the criteria of the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel's, supplemental guidance to military boards, dated 3 September 2014, and it justifies an upgrade of his discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was partially mitigating for some but not all of the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The applicant's active duty electronic medical records revealed diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Insomnia, and PTSD. Medical records indicated the applicant reported having an episode of depression in 2008 for about four or five months. Before his first deployment, he received an Article 15 and a demotion in rank in 2008, due to underage drinking. He took two ASAP classes, completed his first deployment and then was seen again by ASAP in June 2010, following a DUI arrest. There was no follow-up treatment indicated in AHLTA. In April 2011, while deployed, the applicant sought treatment for Depression which he attributed to family stressors, deployment experiences, and relationship difficulties. He was started on Prozac and Ambien while in theater. Upon redeployment, he reported good effects from medication and a decrease in depression. March 2012, the applicant was seen as a self-referral to ASAP due to reporting his alcohol use was out of control and led to missing formation twice in one week. ASAP note, dated 2 April 2012, the applicant reported drinking daily since returning from second deployment to help with depression and sleep problems, particularly his nightmares related to deployment. He was enrolled in an Intensive Outpatient ASAP program from March to June 2012, but received no therapy for specific PTSD symptoms. Upon PCS'ing to Korea, the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence after breaking curfew due to intoxication. Medical note, dated 22 January 2013, indicated the applicant was receiving a Chapter 9. The 13 August 2013 Mental Status Evaluation indicated the applicant met criteria for PTSD and Alcohol Dependence. The provider indicated it was unclear if the applicant's anxiety symptoms contributed to his offenses and that his struggle with sobriety may be due to a lack of consistent treatment to address PTSD. It was recommended that he be given 90 days of treatment and if the applicant was unable to utilize more appropriate coping skills, then at the end of treatment, a separation discharge would be appropriate. The applicant participated in PTSD treatment from September to November 2013; however, it was in the opinion of treatment provider that legal troubles were exacerbating symptoms. He did not complete treatment due to confinement. In summary, the applicant reported significant problems related to sleep, alcohol, and PTSD. Because treatment specifically for PTSD was not provided until separation proceedings had already started for his multiple alcohol related incidents, it is uncertain if earlier and consistent PTSD treatment could have impacted his behavioral health symptoms; therefore, some of his misconduct is mitigated. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 June 2017, and by a 3-2 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disobeying the lawful orders of his superior commissioned officer by consuming alcohol on 10 October 2013 and 2 November 2013; violating the curfew policy on 11 October 2013 and 9 December 2012; making a false official statement on 12 October 2013; being drunk and disorderly on 11 October 2013; being found to be derelict by failing to abstain from drinking alcohol on 22 June 2013; being unable to perform his duties because of prior overindulgence on 3 June 2013; failing to report for a mission, and to the 0630 and 0900 formations on 13 May 2013; and exceeding his monthly liquor rations during the month of April 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 December 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived according to an approved offer to plead guilty in a summary court-martial proceedings, dated 17 November 2013 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 December 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 July 2007 / 6 years, 22 weeks (ERB shows an ETS date of 26 December 2013) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 6 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (12 December 2008 to 10 December 2009), (2 February 2011 to 1 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-3CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR-2; CAB; MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for violating curfew; failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; being drunk on duty; being restricted from consuming alcohol; being command-referred into ASAP; exceeding alcohol rations; and patterns of misconduct. Military Police Report, dated 9 December 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a general order, curfew violation. CG Article 15, dated 11 January 2013, for failing to obey a lawful general order on 9 December 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 6 August 2013, for failing to obey a lawful general order between 1 April 2013 and 30 April 2013, and being derelict in the performance of his duties on 22 June 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Result of Trial indicates that on 3 December 2013, the applicant pleaded guilty to the following charges in a summary court-martial: Charge I: two specifications of violating Article 90, UCMJ, for disobeying a commissioned officer on two separate occasion between 10 and 13 October 2013, and on 2 November 2013 Charge II: Violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for failing to obey a lawful general order on 11 October 2013 Charge III: Violation of Article 107, UCMJ, for making a false official statement on 12 October 2013 Charge IV: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for being drunk and disorderly on 11 October 2013 The adjudged sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1,010 pay for one month, and 20 days of confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 16 days (Military Confinement imposed by a summary court-martial sentence: 3 December 2013 to 18 December 2013) / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 August 2013, shows a diagnosis of "AXIS I: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, 303.90 Alcohol Dependence," and the following comments, in pertinent part: The applicant reported "significant anxiety symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is unclear at this point if [the applicant's] anxiety symptoms contributed to his offenses. [The applicant] did admit that his initial use of alcohol was an attempt to manage the anxiety symptoms he was experiencing at the time. [The applicant's] struggle with sobriety may be due to the lack of consistent treatment to address his posttraumatic stress symptoms. It is recommended that [the applicant] be given 90 days to participate in a trial of evidence-based treatment, IAW OTSG/MEDCOM Policy 12-035, to address his current symptoms. If [the applicant] is unable to utilize more appropriate coping strategies at the end of treatment, an administrative action would be appropriate. This evaluation consisted of a review of AHLTA electronic medical records, a comprehensive clinical and psychosocial interview, and psychological testing. ... ." Report of Medical History, dated 19 August 2013, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues and a diagnosis of PTSD. Medical Record, dated 19 July 2014, shows a diagnosis of PTSD. VA Rating Decision, dated 10 September 2014, indicates the applicant was granted 30 percent disability evaluation for service-connected PTSD with alcohol abuse disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 5 June 2016; VA Rating Decision, dated 10 September 2014; medical record (questionnaire), dated 19 July 2014; and DD Form 214. 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 14-12c 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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. By incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and treated for the condition while in service, and his PTSD led to his behavioral issues and subsequently, he was disciplined by his chain of command and discharged. A careful review of the record of evidence and 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. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 June 2017, and by a 3-2 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160011171 1