1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 April 2017 b. Date Received: 18 April 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of narrative reason for discharge to for the convenience of the government. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge is inequitable because of a previously undiagnosed PTSD and TBI which mitigates the discharge related conduct. The applicant contends that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 requirements of medical exams to determine the effects of PTSD constitutes a substantial enhancement of right and casts substantial doubt on this discharge. Also, the 2014 Hagel memo requires that the request be given liberal consideration because it is based on PTSD. The applicant contends risking life fighting for this country and the consequences of war have taken their toll. Even today, the applicant suffers from headaches and other symptoms of PTSD; however, is seeking help and getting better. The applicant dreams of returning to school to earn a degree one day soon. The applicant requests, as a matter of equity, for the discharge status to be upgraded and narrative reason for separation to be changed to "for convenience of the government." It was unfortunate the applicant served during a time when our recognition and understanding of PTSD and its effects was severely lacking. If still serving today, the applicant believes the Army would be required to evaluate for PTSD prior to separation with a less than honorable discharge. With that PTSD diagnosis, it is likely that the discharge would have turned out differently, but more importantly, the applicant would have received the necessary help sooner. The issuance of the 2014 Hagel Memo underscores the fact that the discharge related misconduct must be viewed in the context of the applicant's undiagnosed PTSD. The board has the opportunity to properly recognize the applicant's service by upgrading the status to honorable and changing the narrative reason for separation. 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 Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol Dependence while on active duty. Post service, the applicant has a service-connected disability rating of 100% for the diagnosis of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant had BH diagnoses that are partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 January 2019, 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnoses of PTSD). Therefore, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 March 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to be at his appointed place of duty several times and being found drunk on duty and also being found drinking while enrolled in ASAP. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 April 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 April 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2005 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (10 March 2006 to 10 March 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 13 September 2007 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 August 2007. The Article 15 document makes reference to a continuation sheet; however, the continuation sheet was not found in the record. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $340 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 January 2008, shows the applicant was diagnosed for Axis I for alcohol abuse. It was noted that he had the mental capacity to understand and participated in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, self-authored letter, PTSD diagnosis letter and request for expedited review, legal brief (exhibits a-s), support letters, and DD Form 214. Post-Service documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs, makes reference to the applicant having been diagnosed with PTSD, TBI, and alcohol use disorder, severe. It was also noted that the applicant has been awarded 50 percent service- connect disability by the Veterans Administration. The applicant also provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 3 March 2017 that shows he was awarded 100 percent service-connected disability. 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, and pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 through counsel requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change of his narrative reason for discharge to for the convenience of the government. 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. 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 was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." 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 appropriate RE code is 3. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge is inequitable because his previously undiagnosed PTSD and TBI mitigates his discharge related conduct. He contends that he risked his life fighting for this country. The consequences of war have taken their toll on him. Even today, he suffers from headaches and other symptoms of PTSD; however, he is seeking help and getting better. He dreams of returning to school to earn a degree one day soon. It was unfortunate he served during a time when our recognition and understanding of PTSD and its effects was severely lacking. He believe if he was serving today, the Army would be required to evaluate him for PTSD prior to separating him with a less than honorable discharge. With that PTSD diagnosis, it is likely that his discharge would have turned out differently, but more importantly, he would have received the help he needed sooner. The issuance of the 2014 Hagel Memo underscores the fact that his discharge related misconduct must be viewed in the context of his then undiagnosed PTSD. The board has the opportunity to properly recognize his service by upgrading his status to honorable and changing his narrative reason for separation. The applicant's contentions were noted; evidence in the record shows the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation, on 17 January 2008, which shows the applicant was diagnosed for Axis I for alcohol abuse. It was noted that he had the mental capacity to understand and participated in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The post-service documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs are noted. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. Also, 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. It should be noted; the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 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 expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to go to school. 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 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 16 January 2019, 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD). Therefore, 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 AR20170007420 1