1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 September 2016 b. Date Received: 22 September 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was a good Soldier with intentions to be part of something greater than himself. The applicant contends that he struggled with depression, noting an attempted suicide while in AIT, and anxiety that gradually got worse. The applicant further contends that he was victimized by his first sergeant (1SG) who personally disliked him and who happened to be in a powerful position. The applicant states that he was told he would receive an honorable discharge; however, the 1SG convinced the commander to recommend a general discharge instead. During the separation process, the applicant alleges that rules were broken by others and the commander's signature was forged by NCOs in order to expedite the process. Since his discharge, the applicant has struggled attaining employment. The applicant states that he entered the military with good intentions and if given the opportunity to serve, he would try again. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did have a mitigating behavioral health condition for the some of the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed with clinical encounters from October 2010 thru November 2015. Clinical notes reviewed from March 2011 thru April 2014. Radiology reports reviewed from February 2013 thru November 2015. Laboratory results reviewed from March 2011 to June 2014. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes 34 problems (14 VA entered) with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder recurrent moderate, epiphoria, and others. The Veterans Affairs has service-connected the applicant at 70 percent overall. VA Neuropsychological evaluation (July 2016) with no residual cognitive effects due to traumatic brain injury. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 24 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, severe family matters (i.e. depressive and bi-polar in conjunction with alcoholic ex-wife and an infant son), and post service accomplishments (i.e. earned BA, two years in aircraft industry, gained legal custody of his so, and remarried), and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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: 1 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: physically controlled a vehicle while drunk while having a child under the age of 16 years in the vehicle as well (5 July 2013); and, missing a scheduled appointment due to the fact that he was intoxicated (15 May 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 July 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 March 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31F10, Fire Support Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 2 June 2014, reflects the applicant failed to obey warning signs and was involved in a traffic accident resulting in damage to government and private property (on post). FG Article 15, dated 25 September 2015, for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk (5 July 2013); drunk and disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces (5 July 2013); and was responsible for the care of J.A.K., a child under the age of 16 years and did endanger the safety of said child by operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol with J.A.K, in the vehicle, and that such conduct constituted culpable negligence (5 July 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $849 pay for two months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (suspended). The applicant received reintegration, monthly, Article 15, and high risk counseling; he also received negative counseling for domestic issues, disobeying a regulation and bar to reenlistment, assault consummated by a battery, child endangerment, driving while impaired by alcohol, improper uniform; and missing an appointment. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 27 May 2014, reflects the applicant was receiving care from behavioral health for depression. He was seen in 2014 for suicidal ideation. Report of Medical Examination, dated 10 June 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Major Depression, single episode. The applicant was screened in accordance with MEDCOM Policy Memo 11-010 for PTSD and TBI utilizing the Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC- PTSD) and mTBI Screening Questions from the PDHA. The results were negative on both instruments. There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. DAV letter, dated 12 July 2016, reflects the applicant was assigned a 70 percent service connected disability rating for a bipolar disorder with traumatic brain injury (TBI), claimed as chronic anxiety/depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored statement; VA disability compensation letter; DAV letter; VA Summary of Benefits letter; Kaplan University Degree Certificate; Developmental Counseling forms; people I work with information paper; silver award for persistence; final divorce decree; case separation file; support statement; USAREUR driver's license suspension; USAREUR training certificate; OMPF documents; and a legal blood alcohol content (BAC) in Texas information paper. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant holds a position where he assists in production of Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) components used by the military. 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, 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends that he was a good Soldier with intentions to be a part of something greater than himself. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. The applicant also contends that he struggled with depression, noting an attempted suicide while in AIT, and anxiety that gradually got worse. The record of evidence shows that the applicant attempted suicide in AIT and that the applicant was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was victimized by his 1SG who personally disliked him and happened to be in a powerful position. Although the applicant alleges that he was victimized by his first sergeant 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. Moreover, the applicant contends that he was told he would receive an honorable discharge; however, the 1SG convinced the commander to recommend a general discharge instead. 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 applicant contends that rules were broken by others during the separation process and that the commander's signature was forged by NCOs in order to expedite the process. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was improperly discharged. Lastly, the applicant contends that if given the opportunity to serve, he would try again. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at San Antonio, TX on 24 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, severe family matters (i.e. depressive and bi-polar in conjunction with alcoholic ex-wife and an infant son), and post service accomplishments (i.e. earned BA, two years in aircraft industry, gained legal custody of his so, and remarried), and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20160015574 1