1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 December 2016 b. Date Received: 6 March 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 not given the proper guidance and counseling during a fight with alcoholism. Since then, the applicant has been diagnosed and treated for alcoholism through the VA. The applicant believes, if given the proper guidance and treatment while on active duty, the more than 17 years of honorable service would not have been cut short. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant is 90% service-connected; 70% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 2020, and by a 5-0 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 July 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 2 August 2005, he committed Adultery, a violation of Article 134, UCMJ; On 24 January 2007, he drove a vehicle under influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of Article 111; and, On 25 January 2007, he was incapacitated for proper performance of his duties due to wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, a violation of Article 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 July 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 July 2007, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 July 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 December 2000 / 4 years / The applicant's service record is void of any enlistment contract retaining him on active duty after 14 December 2004. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 16 years, 1 month, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 6 July 1990 - 9 April 1992 / NIF IADT, 10 June 1991 - 4 October 1991 / NIF (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Egypt, Italy, Korea, SWA / Kuwait (12 October 2002 - 8 October 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCM, ARCOM-2, AAM-4, JMUA, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM- 2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, MFOM-2 / The applicant's DD Form 214, does not reflect the applicant's second and third AGCM; second NDSM; second NCOPDR; and, his second OSR. g. Performance Ratings: September 2000 - August 2001 / Among The Best September 2001 - May 2002 / Among The Best June 2002 - January 2003 / Fully Capable February 2003 - December 2003 / Among The Best January 2004 - July 2004 / Among The Best August 2004 - January 2005 / Fully Capable February 2005 - January 2006 / Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 4 January 2005, for driving while under the influence of alcohol. On 2 December 2004, he was involved in a traffic accident. Subsequently, he was administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which indicated he was impaired. Additionally two Intoxilyzer breath tests were administered to him, which resulted in readings of .130 BAC and .126 BAC, respectively. FG Article 15, dated 22 May 2005, for wrongfully having intercourse with H. R., a woman not his wife (2 August 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4. Military Police Report, dated 24 January 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken Driving (Off Post); Talking on Cell Phone While Driving (Off Post); Drunk on Duty - Other Case (Off Post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 1 March 2007, for driving while under the influence of alcohol. At approximately 0315 hours on 24 January 2007, he was stopped by the Vicenza Polizia for talking on a cellular phone while driving. The Polizia detected a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his breath and person and directed him to take a breath test, which he refused. Upon arrival at the scene, the Military Police also detected a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his breath and person. He was then transported to the Military Police Station where he was administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which indicated he was impaired. He was then administered a breath test utilizing the Intoxilyzer 8000 which resulted in a .227 percent and .231 percent BAC. Report of result of Trial, dated 29 June 2007, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 26 June 2007. The applicant was charged with: Violation of Article 111, UCMJ: on or about 24 January 2007, control a vehicle while drunk. The applicant was found guilty, consistent with the plea; and, Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, on or about 25 January 2007, were incapacitated for duties as a result of previous overindulgence in liquor. The applicant was found guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-2. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 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 he has been diagnonsed with alcoholism since his discahrge be the VA. However, the service record contains no evidence of Alcoholism diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he did not receive the proper counseling or guidance to help him with his alcoholism. However, 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. Further, 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. 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 31 January 2020, and by a 5-0 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 a 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 / 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 AR20170003211 1