1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 February 2017 b. Date Received: 6 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, due to improper actions by his chain of command, he was discharged without full rehabilitation. After his deployment in 2009, he had severe PTSD, which was undiagnosed. At the time, he was being seen and was pending, an MEB, however, his CSM decided to chapter him due to a DWI in November 2010. His consumption of alcohol became excessive after his deployment. He believed his coping method was through the bottom of a bottle. He was never informed about the Alcohol Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), until he was discharged. His PTSD had started to control his whole life and many of his peers saw him hit bottom. His DWI in 2010, was related to his PTSD condition and he was not evaluated like he should have been. He was never given an opportunity to attend counseling seminars and he was told by NCOs that he did not have PTSD and he did not need counseling. Since his separation from the Army, he has had some minor hiccups, but nothing as severe as what had led to his discharge from the military. He is currently rated 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs for PTSD, with other symptoms. He desires the upgrade to allow him to further his education and the G.I. Bill will help him with the financial aspect of school. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant’s PTSD is not mitigating for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. There is no nexus between impersonating a noncommissioned officer and PTSD. Additionally, while PTSD may be associated with occasional avoidant behaviors, it is not typically associated with multiple (over 15) instances of failing to report. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 July 2017, 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: 11 June 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully and willfully impersonated a noncommissioned officer and he failed to report to his prescribed place of duty on numerous occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 24 March 2010, the applicant waived his rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 May 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2007 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 June - 15 November 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 29 September 2009, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on various occasions (between 9 and 15 September 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $366 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 3 December 2009, for impersonating a noncommissioned officer (7 November 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699 pay for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. On 29 December 2009, the suspended portion of the punishment was vacated. The vacation was based on the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 28 December 2009. FG Article 15, dated 26 January 2010, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on various occasions (between 4 and 10 January 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 7 days. The applicant received numerous counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 December 2009, 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 mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. The remarks section noted: “TBI screen Remarkable due to AHLTA hx and current MEB in process. PTSD screen unremarkable, but does present with mental health AHLTA hx to influence his impulsive behavior (consult for talk therapist submitted.) After evaluation, treatment plan completion, and if the current MEB is not completed SM may qualify for chap 5-17, reclassification or other type of discharge.” The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 7 September 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the 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. 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, paragraph 12b, Pattern of Misconduct. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” 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 be retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because because he was going through the MEB process. However, 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 regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Further, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for 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 7 December 2009, 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 he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation and was unaware of the ASAP. 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. If the applicant was unaware of the program, he had many other 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 his noncommissioned officers told him that he did not have PTSD and that he did not need counseling. 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. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 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 12 July 2017, 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 d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20170007596 6