1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 January 2017 b. Date Received: 10 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was very young and also very proud to serve the country. When the applicant returned home from a deployment overseas, the applicant was seeking physical therapy for a back and shoulder injury, which happened during the deployment. The applicant was in a lot of pain and agony, but still tried to do assigned duties with the unit. The applicant states, one of the Chief Warrant Officers in the unit gave the applicant a very hard time. During that period, the Warrant Officer would give the applicant a hard time about anything, and did not like the applicant. The applicant had reenlisted for the college option, but the Chief Warrant Officer would not allow the applicant to use it or go to school. The applicant states that the Chief Warrant Officer knew the applicant was on high amount of medication for pain and that the applicant had witnessed a best friend get shot in the head at their platoon Staff Sergeant's house. The applicant is now 27, engaged to a wonderful woman who helps with the applicant's disabilities, PTSD, back issues and more. They recently had a daughter together and wants to use the Post 9-11/GI BILL. The applicant only has 60 percent of the benefit because of the general discharge. The applicant asks the Board to please understand the applicant's love of the country, fought hard, and still has pride for serving the country. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, notes indicate the applicant has Behavioral Health (BH) diagnoses. The VA has rated the applicant as 100% service connected for PTSD. Based on the available information, the applicant has a mitigating BH disorder and therefore is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and the misconduct that led to separation. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 July 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 June 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 May 2010, he received an Article 15 for violating Article 92, by failing to obey a lawful general order as well as Article 86, by failing to report to his appointed place of duty; Additionally on diverse occasions, he was counseled for disobeying lawful orders, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and abusing his prescription drugs; and, His conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and violates the acceptable standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations and traditions of the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 June 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 June 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 February 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years, 1 month, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 May 2007 - 9 February 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / UAE (7 March 2009 - 21 October 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 24 May 2010, for wrongfully driving under the influence of a prescribed medication in violation of a lawful order (5 May 2010); and, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (27 April and 5 May 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 19 May 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Opioid Abuse; Benzodiazepine Abuse; and, Anxiety Disorder NOS. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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. 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 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 that 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. 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 contends that he was harrased and discriminated by members of his chain of command; however, 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 19 May 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him additional educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 contends that he was young at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 1 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / 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 AR20170002185 1