1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 June 2016 b. Date Received: 5 July 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Board would consider him for a possible upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his DD Form 214 requires correction to reflect his continuous honorable service from 27 January 2005 through 10 December 2014, as shown in block 18 for veterans' benefits purpose. Veterans Administration indicates that his service from 2005 through 2014 was dishonorable, but his service was honorable. He asserts the DD Form 214 also was not signed by him. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has AHLTA diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Chronic Pain Syndrome, Hepatitis C, Methamphetamine Dependence, Methamphetamine Dependence-Episodic, Opioid Dependence, Opioid Dependence Episodic, Opioid Withdrawal, Persistent Insomnia, Polysubstance Dependence, PTSD, and Substance Use Disorders on his problem list. He did receive treatment for his drug diagnoses. PTSD was diagnosed on three visits (March 2015 2x & April 2015 1x). He had a Separation MSE on 19 March 2015. The examiner asserted he met Army Medical Retention Standards. She also said he had one psychiatric detox hospitalization 03 February 2015 to 03 March 2015. She deferred diagnoses of any mental health disorders other than his drug-related diagnoses, even though she had 1 day earlier used the diagnosis of PTSD without explanation of the symptoms that led her to make the diagnosis. The following day she wrote a note on recent psychological testing. Neither the applicant's MMPI-RF-2 nor his PAI was, according to her, interpretable, owing to the validity scales showing the profiles to be invalid, with her specifically noting the applicant had over endorsed symptoms on the PAI; however, she asserted he had PTSD because of his Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV. She did not explain how this result fit with the invalid profiles on both the PAI and MMPI-RF-2, saying that the testing that undermines her diagnosis had been "taken into account," whilst then adding the CAPS had only "fair" validity. She also conceded the applicant's symptoms she relied on to make the diagnosis of PTSD emerged well after his alleged traumatic deployment; however, post-deployment surveys completed by the applicant in 2011 and 2013 did not show combat exposures, fear of death or witnessing killed or grievously wounded persons. She did opine that the applicant's problems were related to drugs, not PTSD. His NCOERs are 1 and 2s prior to his legal problems. A bad NCOER appeared during his legal problems. An AHLTA note of 02 February 2015 said he first used Opioids at the age of 20, "I used at age 20 for the first time because I had my wisdom teeth pulled. I started using regularly at age 24 for back pain. I got addicted at that time until present." He went on to explain he started using heroin "because it was cheaper." He admitted his first alcohol use was at age 11. He admitted his marijuana use started at age 12 and last until age 16, with him saying he smoked every day until he stopped at age 16. A note for testing on 30 September 2011 showed him denying any combat exposure or seeing dead or seriously wounded people during his deployment. A note of 19 December 2013 showed him as being negative for PTSD and again denying any combat exposure or seeing of dead or severely wounded persons. . He has no service connected disability percentages in JLV. His JLV problem list diagnoses include Other Reaction to Severe Stress and Opioid Dependence, with these problems being listed in 2017. The totality of the record does not support the diagnosis of PTSD by one provider and, even if the PTSD diagnosis were accepted, the provider who diagnosed the PTSD did not attribute his misconduct to it in her Separation MSE. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 September 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant recklessly endangered and threatened a civilian by assaulting him with his vehicle while driving under the influence of Oxycodone on 31 March 2015. He resisted apprehension and his conduct was disorderly on 24 March 2015. He wrongfully used Heroin, a schedule II controlled substance on 11 December 2014. He wrongfully used Methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance on 25 March 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 July 2015 (Conditional Waiver) and 4 August 2015 (Unconditional Waiver) (5) Administrative Separation Board: The GCMCA approved the applicant's unconditional waiver request on 11 August 2015. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 August 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 January 2013 / 3 years (The applicant's DD Form 214, in block 18 (Remarks) shows a continuous honorable active service from 27 January 2005 through 10 December 2014; however, the last reenlistment contract shows reenlistment on 31 January 2013.) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 12K10, Plumber / 11 years, 11 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (28 July 2003 to 6 October 2003) / NA IADT (7 October 2003 to 6 March 2004) / NIF USAR (NIF to 26 January 2005) / NA RA (27 January 2005 to 30 January 2013) / HD (Note: Any reenlistments after 27 January 2005, but prior to and after 31 January 2013, are NIF) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Germany / Iraq (20 March 2005 to 17 December 2005), (30 October 2006 to 23 October 2007), Kuwait (23 October 2010 to 20 October 2011), Afghanistan (7 June 2013 to 13 December 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4; JSAM; AAM-4; AGCM-2; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ICM-CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-4; NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: Three NCOERs rendered during period under current review: 31 October 2012 thru 28 February 2013, Among the Best 1 March 2013 thru 28 February 2014, Fully Capable 1 March 2014 thru 23 February 2015, RFC, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 March 2015, for wrongfully using heroin on 11 December 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,553 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended), and an oral reprimand. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 8 April 2015, indicates the suspended punishments of forfeiture of $1,553 for two months and 45 days of restriction imposed on 8 April (sic) 2015 (should be 19 March 2015), were vacated due to the applicant failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 24 March 2015. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 26 days (Civilian confinement from 31 March 2015 to 20 April 2015, for 21 days, and AWOL from 23 July 2015 to 27 July 2015, for 5 days) / latter AWOL status, returned to unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 29 June 2016, and VA Administrative Decision, undated. 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 or 4. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed, in pertinent part, by DoDI 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. Accordingly, the applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and document 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 the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant within his application requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to "show continuous service from 20050127 - 20141210." Based on a review of the DD214, it does state just that, "//CONTINOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE 20050127-20141210//." Thus what he is requesting, is already reflected correctly within his DD Form 214. Further, Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents), paragraph 5-2, provides instructions on when not to prepare a DD Form 214. In pertinent part, according to paragraph 5-2f, a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for Soldiers who are discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. Therefore, in absence of any reenlistment documents since his enlistment on 27 January 2005, his DD Form 214 shows one continuous honorable service from 27 January 2005 through 10 December 2014. However, the only reenlistment document in the applicant's records shows he reenlisted on 31 January 2013, for a period of three years, and that is the period that is under the Board's current review (from 31 January 2013 through 20 August 2015). Furthermore, regarding the applicant's contention that the DD Form 214 was not signed by him, AR 635-8, paragraph 5-6u (Rules for completing the DD Form 214), states for block 21, that when a Soldier is not available (separated in absentia), "SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE TO SIGN" will be entered. Thus that entry was made on his DD Form 214 in lieu of his signature because he was not available to sign. Although the applicant did not directly raise Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) issue, in his documentary evidence, an undated VA Administrative Decision, shows that he related to having issues with PTSD. A careful review of the applicant's available record found no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete record of his PTSD or any behavioral health diagnoses) or other evidence sufficient to explain his medical condition, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 15 September 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 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 AR20160012397 3