1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 February 2017 b. Date Received: 21 February 2017 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 narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge is inequitable because he was chaptered out, after already serving punishment under an Article 15, for the same mishap. The separation date was after his original contract expiration term of service (ETS) date. He states, he never reenlisted or agreed for his ETS date to be changed from March 2011 to August 2011, when his unit returned from Iraq. He states, while in basic training, he experienced an injury to his foot which caused episodes of severe pain. He tried hard to fulfill his duties and meet the established expectations. The injury led to two surgical procedures, which left a deformity in his left foot. He also suffered the loss of a close friend, financial and marital hardships, and traumatic episodes from the bombings while deployed. As a result, he made some decisions that he regrets. He was struggling to overcome feelings of stress, anxiety, and depression. He was experiencing situations in life that he was not prepared for, which included becoming the father before his separation from the Army. He had problems with his vehicle, which made it difficult at times to report for duty. He even called for assistance with transportation on occasions and he stayed on base when he was allowed. He states, it was never his intention to be AWOL at any time. His wife had moved to Georgia shortly after their marriage in North Carolina where they lived off base. He was proud to be a Soldier in the Army and he worked hard to advance and earn recognition prior to experiencing the difficult times. He states that he was divorced in 2011 and he is desperately trying hard to provide for his children. He desires to be a father they can be proud of and it is part of the reason for his request for an upgrade. Since leaving the Army, he has worked a number of part-time jobs, but he desires to better his education so that he may find employment in a stable position. He sincerely requests for an opportunity to improve his quality of life and contribute to a better future for his children. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's Separation MSE cleared him for discharge. During AD service, he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood in 2010. He has a 30% VA SC disability percentage, though the reason was not clear. His encounter list did not show treatment for psychiatric disorders. He is not mitigated. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 June 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, to include combat service, severe family matters, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. 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, paragraph 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 March 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 December 2010, he tested positive for marijuana which was a result of an urinalysis; and, On 18, 19, 26, 27 January and 01 February 2011, he failed to report for formation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 March 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 March 2008 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 August 2008 - 16 August 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 March 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 28 January 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 26 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 30 December 2010. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, DD Form 214, DD Form 293, a self- authored statement, case separation documents and a divorce decree. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he has gained employment. 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, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 and a narrative reason change. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends he was held on active duty past his enlistment contract. However, the applicant's issue does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends that he was discharged for the same misconduct that he had already been punished for. However, 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 applicant contends he was suffering from stress, anxiety and depression. However, the service record contains no evidence of a stress, anxiety or depression diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record shows that on 2 March 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 medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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 applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow 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 an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 15 June 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, to include combat service, severe family matters, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. 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, paragraph 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, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170003171 1