1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 November 2016 b. Date Received: 21 November 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 feels that he was punished multiple times for one offense to include being chaptered. He also believe it was unfair to serve over four years, to include a year in Iraq and being involved in multiple lED blasts, and be denied the GI bill because his initial contract was five years. Prior to this accident he was an exemplary Soldier. He is in a homeless veteran program while enrolled in a combat PTSD program at the Coatesville VA in Pennsylvania. Drinking helped him cope with his PTSD. He was basically being coerced into agreeing that he did not have PTSD or an alcohol problem, because he was not going to get help at that point. He was being discharged and while waiting to be discharged he was so depressed, he contemplated ways of killing himself. He could not use his service record to gain employment because he had a general under honorable discharge for misconduct. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has AHLTA diagnoses that include Alcohol Abuse. Alcohol Intoxication, Alcohol Intoxication in Remission. The alcohol diagnoses all occurred in 2009 between 19 February and 17 August inclusive, with the "in remission" diagnosis being the last ASAP contact. He was seen for a Separation MSE on 12 December 2012, and not found to have a psychiatric diagnosis. The examiner noted he had a car accident in September 2011 while drunk and fled the scene of the accident, with the applicant telling the examiner he had stopped drinking after the accident. He was negative for TBI and for PTSD. He was determined to be fit for duty and cleared for administrative discharge. The JLV showed him to be a 100% VA SC disability rating with PTSD being among his post-discharge diagnoses on his VA Problem List. He also showed as having a VA hospitalization for polysubstance abuse from 29 August 2016 to 28 September 2016. His PCL scores in 2016 were massively more elevated than in 2011. The applicant's presentation to the VA is different than what he presented to clinicians during his active duty service. In any event, his post-service PTSD, even if allowed to be present during his Active Duty service which is contrary to the evidence from the time of his misconduct, does not mitigate drunk driving, injury a person while driving, or leaving the scene afterwards. At most it mitigates arriving at work with a Blood Alcohol Level in excess of .1 a couple of hours after the accident. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 March 2018, and by a 3-2 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 February 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The notification memorandum is not contained in the available record; however, the unit commander's recommendation memorandum shows that the applicant caused an accident in which the Soldier was driving while intoxicated; and he showed up for work hours later and was charged with wrongful previous overindulgence with a .127 blood alcohol level. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 133 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 4 years, 1 month d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 9 October 2009 to 28 September 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 2 September 2011 to 17 November 2011, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 17 November 2011, for physically controlling a vehicle, a passenger car, while drunk and did thereby cause said vehicle to injure K.M.V. (2 September 2011); and as*a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (2 September 2011); reduction to SPC / E-4, forfeiture of $1,061 pay for two months, extra duty for and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 December 20112, relates that the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI. These conditions are either not present or, if present, do not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being recommended for separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement (nine pages); report of mental status evaluation; DD Form 214; medical document; psychiatry Initial evaluation (six pages); patient summary (three pages); VA documents (six pages); psychology consult (four pages); total appointment profile; and OMPF documents (38 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 feels that he was punished multiple times for one offense to include being chaptered. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, he also believe it was unfair to serve over four years, to include a year in Iraq and being involved in multiple lED blasts, and denied the GI bill because his initial contract was five years. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant also contends, prior to this accident he was an exemplary Soldier. 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 additionally contends, he is in a homeless veteran program while enrolled in a combat PTSD program at the Coatesville VA in Pennsylvania. The applicant submitted a VA document that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD, alcohol abuse, in early remission, stimulant abuse, in early remission and rule out major depression. Other symptoms present were anxiety, insomnia and panic attacks. Furthermore, the applicant contends, drinking helped him cope with his PTSD. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Moreover, the applicant contends, he was basically being coerced into agreeing that he did not have PTSD or an alcohol problem, because he was not going to get help at that point; he was being discharged. AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. Further, if the applicant believed his mental conditions were not adequately addressed he could have self-referred to the Community Behavioral Health Center for further assistance. The applicant contends, while waiting to be discharged he was so depressed, he contemplated ways of killing myself. A VA document revealed that the applicant had suicidal ideation which was within the last six months. Lastly, the applicant contends, he could not use his service record to gain employment because he had a general under honorable discharge for misconduct. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities 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 3-2 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. Change SPD Code to: No Change 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 AR20170001681 4