1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 July 2016 b. Date Received: 18 August 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 was unjustly discharged. He contends his misconduct was the result of a Traumatic Brain Injury he suffered on 2 February 2010. After the injury, he started acting out by being arrested with two DW's, getting into fights; therefore, his behavior was unsatisfactory, so he was discharged. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, it is a reasonable justification for rejecting the patient's unsupported contention that his brain injury was ignored during his discharge process. The JLV did not show any service-connected disability percentage. It did show he had a VA hospital admission for "substance abuse" from 6 June 2016 to 15 September 2016. The most recent VA note in JLV was on 24 February 2017. It made this observation about the applicant's history. "The veteran has a history of Cluster B personality disorder [personalities that are dramatic in presentation in virtue of being volatile emotions and behavior, as well as unpredictable think], Alcohol Abuse, nondependent cannabis abuse in remission, legal problem, and Personal History of Traumatic Brain Injury." The note occurred as a result of a pre-docket and status hearing in Texas. As a result of this and other problems, the applicant was unsuccessfully discharged in a VA program in which he had been participating. Again, this occurrence fits with a larger pattern of the applicant having difficulty abiding whether in the Army or not and being truthful in responding to authorities. His JLV VA problem list for 2016 included Other Stimulants, Cannabis Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, Problems in Relationships. In all, his difficulties appear to be rooted in personality organization that predated his brain injury, and he has presented no evidence to refute conclusions about him in either the neuropsychological report or the pre-discharge Mental Status Exam. In a record review hearing conducted at San Antonio, Texas on 22 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to obey two lawful orders; disobeying a lawful general order; and, AWOL (26 July 2010 until 4 August 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 23 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 February 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 February 2009 / 3 years and 29 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 8 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Coryell County Sheriff's Office Detention Arrest Report, dated 17 March 2010, reflects the applicant was arrested for DWI and released on $2000 bond. CG Article 15, dated 23 April 2010, for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer (9 April 2010) and disobeyed a lawful written order by failing to use his Safe Return Card (17 March 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $378 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 8 December 2010, for disobeying a General Officer written order by having a blood alcohol content of .097 (15 November 2010). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $723, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 days (AWOL, 26 July 2010 to 3 August 2010) / unknown j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The statement of medical examination and duty status documents submitted indicates the applicant slipped on water in the kitchen. The applicant's head impacted floor causing him to suffer a skull fracture, frontal lobe bruising, and minor bleeding. The line of duty investigation memorandum reflects the applicant was approved for a skull fracture and intracranial hemorrhage only. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 October 2010, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) alcohol abuse and (Axis IV) occupational problems. He had positive screens for both the PCL-M (score-68) and the mTBI; however, the applicant had never been deployed or seen combat. No PTSD and TBI symptoms were evident during the evaluation. It was noted by the clinical psychologist that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings deemed appropriated by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; report of medical examination; statement of medical examination and duty status to include supporting documents. 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 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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." 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, 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 his 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 he was unjustly discharged because his misconduct was the result of a TBI (head-injury) he suffered on 2 February 2010. He started acting out as a result of his head injury. The applicant contentions were noted; however there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. In fact, the applicant's two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Also, it was noted that the applicant suffered a head injury on or about 2 February 2010. However, during the applicant mental status evaluation on 29 October 2010, it was noted by the clinical psychologist that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings deemed appropriated 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 with either medical limitation or medication. 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 record review hearing conducted at San Antonio, Texas on 22 March 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 SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. 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 AR20160015022 1