1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 2016 b. Date Received: 11 July 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he never received his first DD Form 214 dated 27 February 2006, which is reflected in an attached certificate as an honorable discharge. He requires the said DD Form 214 to receive medical benefits for treatment of PTSD and a heart condition. He suffers from symptoms and effects of PTSD from active duty while in combat theatre and was diagnosed by Army personnel with PTSD. The Army failed to recognize the medical aspect of the applicant's condition, as reflected in his military medical records and the type of discharge does not reflect his initial honorable service. He should have received a medical discharge, due to his involvement in OEF / OIF and the stress related issues of a combat medic. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time including the applicant's case file, AHLTA and JLV. The applicant's AHLTA diagnoses include Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Anxiety Disorders NOS, Bereavement without Complications, Bulimia Nervosa, Chronic PTSD, Insomnia, Major Depression (Single Episode), Nicotine Dependence, Occupational Problem, and PTSD (3 visits, 13 April 2007 to 16 May 2007). The patient's chapter evaluation on 12 April 2007 stated he "does not meet medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501. A medical Board has been started. His case was reviewed by a MEB on 16 May 2007 and he was again held to fall below retention standards and to have PTSD in the line of duty; however, the note also made plain that the applicant had drug habits that predated the military and that the reported index trauma produced "post-traumatic and depressive symptoms after the death of a friend with whom he was abusing IV anesthetics." He had a positive urine for amphetamine and methamphetamine on 17 August 2007. JLV showed he had no VA SC disability percentage. His VA problem list showed Problems Related to Other Legal Circumstances. Despite the applicant's PTSD, his drug use existed before it. Also, the index trauma for the PTSD was not combat related, and involved the illegal use in theater of drugs on the applicant's own description. He received a bad conduct discharge after a trial by Court-Martial while in the MEB process. The Separation MSE noted his PTSD; however, the applicant was legally separated. Further, as mentioned above the applicant had a history of drug abuse that preceded his deployment and his deployment trauma was the result of him being involved with IV drug abuse with a now deceased solider. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 December 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: Court-Martial Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad-Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 27 March 2009 c. Separation Facts: No (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NA (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the following offenses; without authority, absented himself from his unit x3 (25 May 2007 until 31 May 2007, 28 July 2007 until 31 July 2007 and 17 August 2007 until 5 September 2007); without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x2 (24 May 2007 and 21 April 2007); being disrespectful in language toward 1SG A. C., a superior noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of his office, by saying to him, "No, I am not gonna get dressed," or words to that effect (24 May 2007); wrongfully used cocaine x4 between (22 May 2007 and 24 May 2007, 6 May 2007 and 8 May 2007, 29 March 2007 and 31 March 2007 and 19 March 2007 and 21 March 2007); having been restricted to the limits of Fort Carson, Colorado, by a person authorized to do so, did break said restriction (24 May 2007); as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, was incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (9 February 2007); wrongfully solicited SGT X., to be derelict in the performance of his duties by asking the said X W., to willfully turn his back and allow the said PVT M., to fill his specimen bottle with water (8 May 2007). On 14 November 2007, he was sentenced to confinement for 10 months and to be discharged with a bad-conduct discharge. On 3 March 2008, the sentence was approved. The record of trial being forwarded to The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review and The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the approved findings of guilty and the sentence are not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the judicial process. On 18 December 2008, the sentence was finally affirmed and Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad-conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. (3) Recommended Characterization: NA (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 December 2008 / Bad-Conduct Discharge 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 February 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 5 years, 3 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 July 2003 to 26 February 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 11 June 2006 to 11 June 2007 / approximately date of combat service. f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial, dated 14 November 2007, see paragraph 3c(2) above. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x3 for 31 days (25 May 2007 until 31 May 2007), for 7 days, (28 July 2007 until 31 July 2007, for 5 days and 17 August 2007 until 5 September 2007, for 19 days; mode of return for all periods are unknown. He was confined by military authorities for 97 days a result of his court-martial. Total lost time 128 days. Also he had 400 days of excess leave (22 February 2008 until 27 March 2009). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 April 2007, relates that the applicant has an Axis I diagnosis of chronic PTSD and an anxiety disorder not otherwise specified. Report of Medical Examination, dated 9 May 2007, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and atrial fibrillation. He also was undergoing a MEB for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214; honorable discharge certificate; oath of reenlistment; letter, Director, Case Management Division; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; two permanent physical profiles; emergency care and treatment form (four pages); Report of Medical History (four pages); Report of Medical Examination (three pages); Report of Medical Assessment (two pages); hearing conversation data; support statement (two pages); and VA file stressful incident (three pages). 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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 the characterization of service from bad conduct discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. However, a change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute. The applicant seeks relief contending, he never received his first DD Form 214 dated 27 February 2006, which is reflected in an attached certificate as an honorable discharge; he requires the said DD Form 214 to receive medical benefits for treatment of PTSD and a heart condition. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation of the DD Form 214. It states that effective 1 October 1979, DD Forms 214 would no longer be issued for immediate reenlistments and that all service would be continuous from the date the last DD Form 214 was issued. Prior to 1 October 1979, a DD Form 214 was prepared when a Soldier was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. The applicant further contends, that he suffers from symptoms and effects of PTSD from his active duty service while in theater (i.e., combat zone) and was diagnosed by Army personnel with PTSD. He contends the Army failed to recognize the medical aspect of his condition, as reflected in his military medical records and the type of discharge does not reflect his initial honorable service. The applicant submitted several medical documents which shows that he was diagnosed with PTSD while on active duty and was currently undergoing an MEB for his PTSD. A characterization of service will be determined solely by the Soldier's military record which includes the Soldier's behavior and performance of duty during the current enlistment or period of service to which the separation pertains, plus any extensions prescribed by law or regulation. The applicant also contends, he should have received a medical discharge, due to his involvement in OEF / OIF and the stress related issues of a combat medic. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 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 record review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 December 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 AR20160012631 5