1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 July 2016 b. Date Received: 1 August 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was a direct result from self-medicating for PTSD. He served his country and unit with honor. He was not given the help he needed nor was he treated like the Soldier he was before his PTSD diagnosis. Had he been given the help needed to battle his PTSD without self-medicating, he could have continued serving his country and unit with honor. His exemplary post-service conduct after receiving the help he desperately needed shows what he could have done, had he been given help. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case files, AHLTA and JLV reviewed. AHLTA notes indicate applicant received the following Behavioral Health diagnoses while on active duty-Acute PTSD, Chronic PTSD, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Alcohol Dependence. Additionally, AHLTA indicates he received a gunshot wound to the neck while deployed. JLV indicates that applicant is 80% service connected by the VA, 70% of which is for PTSD. The VA has diagnosed him with PTSD, Insomnia, Alcohol Dependence (in remission). Based on the information available at this time, the applicant has a mitigating Behavioral Health disorder-PTSD. As PTSD is associated with the use of alcohol to self- medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between his PTSD and the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, valor, combat wounding, incapacity to serve, post-service accomplishments and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in- service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD) mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 12 February 2007 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 January 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he violated United States Central Command General Order Number 1B by wrongfully consuming alcohol in Kuwait (1 April 2006); he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (8 November 2006); he was, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of your duties (19 October 2006); and he disobeyed a lawful order from First Sergeant P.J. K. (6 December 2006). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 January 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 January 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 January 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 1 August 2005 to 1 August 2006 f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM, ARCOM-V DEV, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CMB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 2 April 2006, revealed the applicant was under investigation for failing to obey a general order-other - general order #1 alcohol, on post. FG Article 15, dated 16 May 2006 for, fail to obey a lawful general order, United States Central Command General Order Number lB (GO-lB), by wrongfully consuming an alcoholic beverage within the country of Kuwait (1 April 2006); reduction to PFC / E-3, forfeiture of $797 pay (suspended), extra duty for 20 days and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 12 December 2006 for, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (8 November 2006); as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (19 October 2006); having received a lawful order from First Sergeant P.J.K., a noncommissioned officer, to not drive his privately owned vehicle on-post, an order which it was your duty to obey, did willfully disobey the same (6 December 2006); the punishment imposed is not contained in the available record. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Assessment, dated 27 October 2006, relate the applicant had documented issues for PTSD and was being seen by behavioral health. He was prescribed medication for treatment. Report of Medical History, dated 27 October 2006, the physician indicated the applicant had problems with depression, anxiety, sleep troubles with nightmares. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 December 2006, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of alcohol dependence, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified; and rule out (R/O) PTSD. He served as a Medic in Iraq. Since returning he has experienced nightmares, intrusive thoughts, anxiety and sleep disturbance. It appears he has used alcohol to "self- medicate'' against these symptoms. He is clearly dependent upon alcohol and all of his misconduct has been alcohol related (drunk on duty, late for formation after drinking). He was a treatment failure in the Army Substance Abuse Program. He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings. The applicant submitted two VA letter, 29 August 2008 and 2 September 2008, they show that he applicant was a in a PTSD treatment program. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); discharge upgrade letter (five pages); post service letter (three pages); applicant's resume (two pages); 0fficial Transcript, University of Arkansas (five pages); four character / support statements; and two VA letters (three pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states in documents with his application he pursued a degree in Computer Engineering and several years later he graduated with an overall GPA of 3.71. After receiving two Bachelor of Science degrees, one in Applied Mathematics and the other in Computer Engineering, both with Distinction. He had the option to begin a career or continue his education at the University of Arkansas. He chose to receive a resident assistantship from the Computer Science Computer Engineering Department and a Distinguished Doctoral Fellowship to pursue a PhD in Computer Engineering. Currently, he is the Northwest Arkansas Director for Arkansas Freedom Fund, an organization much like Wounded Warriors. 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 an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 inequitable because it was a direct result from self-medicating for PTSD. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was inequitable. 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. The applicant further contends, he served his country and unit with honor. 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 also contends, he was not given the help he needed nor was he treated like the Soldier he was before his PTSD diagnosis. If the applicant believed he did not receive adequate treatment or assistance for his health condition; he could have self-referred to the Community Behavioral Health Center for further assistance. Although the applicant alleges that he was treated differently during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant additionally contends, had he been given the help needed to battle his PTSD without self-medicating, he could have continued serving his country and unit with honor. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Lastly, the applicant contends, his exemplary post-service conduct after receiving the help he desperately needed shows what he could have done, had he been given help. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in the documents with the application. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 11 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, valor, combat wounding, incapacity to serve, post-service accomplishments and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD) mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160014064 1