1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 February 2017 b. Date Received: 21 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. However, the record of evidence shows at the time of separation the applicant was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, needs mental health, medical, drug treatment and education benefits. 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 diagnoses of Abused Spouse, Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and ADHD. VA records only contain DoD content. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 October 2019, 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 21 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which shows on 21 January 2010, the applicant was charged with having received a lawful command from CPT A.M.S., his superior commissioned officer, to sign out with the 126th Transportation Company CQ and indicate the exact location that he was going to, or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same x3 (24 December 2009, 25 December 2009 and 26 December 2009); wrongfully use marijuana between (22 September 2009 and 22 October); wrongfully use cocaine between (20 October 2009 and 22 October); and assault SPC R.M.D., by striking him in the face with the accused fist four times (12 December 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 28 January 2010, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 February 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 February 2007 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 years / GED Certificate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M1P, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 11 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A positive urinalysis test code RO (Rehabilitation Testing), dated 22 October 2009, for COC. An Administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), date not in file, for while under the legal drinking age , he drove ore was in physical control of motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was .06 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: After careful review of the available record, lost time of 25 days, 8 July 2009 until 3 August 2009, category of lost time could not be determined. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 August 2009; revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder. Results of this evaluation were based on the applicant's self-report, clinical assessment, record review, and information provided by his commander. There was no diagnosis of PTSD or TBI identified from this examination. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and applicant's handwritten self-authored statement. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. However, the record of evidence shows at the time of separation the applicant was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and document submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no significant acts of achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he needs mental health, medical, drug treatment, employment and education benefits. 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 Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded RO which indicates "Rehabilitation Testing." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the unit commander submitted a memorandum stating he ordered the applicant to submit to a probable cause urinalysis due to his constant verbal proclamations of his illicit drug usage. The administering UPL erroneously coded the urinalysis basis for the applicant as a rehabilitation urinalysis. The correct basis for the urinalysis was for probable cause. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the RO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for "Probable Cause" instead of RO for "Rehabilitation Testing." If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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 2 October 2019, 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 AR20170003297 1