1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 December 2016 b. Date Received: 27 December 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, he earned an AAM in Alaska. His commander recommended he be retained in Service. His defense counsel cited he was not afforded a rehabilitative transfer. His brigade and battalion commanders still recommended he be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. An honorable discharge would enhance his career opportunities. Since his discharge he maintained steady employment. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, including the applicant's case files, AHLTA and JLV.Applicant's initial contact with Behavioral Health (BH) was in late 2012. At that time, he presented with depressed mood, insomnia, decreased motivation and vague passive suicidal ideation. He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and treated with psychotherapy. In early 2013, he called BH and told them he did not want to see them anymore. At that time, his case was closed. In May 2013, he again presented to BH with the same problems: depression, decreased motivation, poor sleep and feelings of sadness. He was again diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. In Aug 2013, this diagnosis was changed to Atypical Depression. In Jan 2015, the applicant was seen by ASAP for a DUI. He reported a history of heavy alcohol consumption since age 15. He was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse. In his separation MSE, he screened negative for PTSD/TBI. He is 60% service connected by the VA; however, what he is service connected for is not available in JLV. Based on the available information, there are no mitigating BH conditions for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 March 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, in-service diagnosis of OBH and as a result it is inequitable. 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: 15 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he was arrested for disorderly intoxication (1 January 2015); and he was found guilty of shoplifting (27 May 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 February 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / HS graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 12W10, Carpentry and Mason / 3 years, 5 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement for misconduct; and being recommended for separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 February 2015, relates that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of alcohol abuse. The applicant was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury, both screens were negative. The applicant was psychiatrically stable, able to tell right from wrong; there were no safety concerns at this time. He was fully capable to understand and participate in any and all administrative proceedings deemed necessary. He was cleared by behavioral health for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); AAM citation; Chapter 14 discharge documents (six pages); and applicant's resume (two 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 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. 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 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, he earned an AAM in Alaska. 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 further contends, his commander recommended he be retained in Service; and his brigade and battalion commanders still recommended he be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The intermediate commander and the separation authority are not bound by the unit commander's recommendation as to characterization of service or retention on active duty. The applicant also contends, his defense counsel cited he was not afforded a rehabilitative transfer. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant's discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. The applicant additionally contends, an honorable discharge would enhance his career opportunities. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Lastly, the applicant contends, since his discharge he maintained steady employment. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 23 March 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, in-service diagnosis of OBH and as a result it is inequitable. 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 Code to: Change SPD Code to JKN f. Change RE Code 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 AR20170001265 1