1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 May 2017 b. Date Received: 23 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable; a narrative reason change and a reentry (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, as soon as the applicant enlisted and began training, the applicant instantly fell in love with the Army. After completing basic training, the applicant attended Airborne School and the very first Ranger Assessment and Selection program, was assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, and went on a deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant states the deployment was tough, with many friendly KIA's and many injuries. After redeployment, the applicant developed PTSD and began drinking heavily to cope with the symptoms, which caused many problems including the discharge. The applicant was released for standards from 2nd Ranger Battalion, six months after redeployment for underage drinking. The applicant was then reassigned to Fort Bliss and served as a sniper. The applicant enjoyed the job, but still had a hard time coping with PTSD, which once again led to trouble. Six months after arriving to the new unit, the applicant was given a Field Grade Article 15, for being drunk on duty. The applicant was demoted and after this incident, knew something was wrong, but never sought out help. The applicant concealed the pain, tried to bury it and quickly earned rank and later, became a noncommissioned officer. In 2013, the applicant deployed as a team leader, and after redeployment, became a squad leader and continued leadership training and in 2015, was promoted to SSG. From the time of the Article 15, up until present, the applicant has struggled with alcohol consumption in an effort to combat the symptoms. The applicant carried out duties with the unit and after a month long training event, made a poor choice and was arrested for DWI. After being notified of the intent to separate the applicant from the Army, the applicant attended an administrative separation board. The applicant did not receive proper counsel during the discharge and was unable to contact a JAG attorney until the day of the hearing. The applicant states, the outcome of the board was that he could have taken a 12 month probationary period. The applicant was informed by his JAG attorney that the board was conducted illegally. The applicant elected to appeal the decision of the board, but the next day, learned of being separated from the Army with a general discharge. The applicant received no guidance on the ramifications of the discharge on future life. The applicant states, a few months after discharge, the applicant learned the president of the administrative separation board and the Commander of the 1st Armored Division 1st Brigade Combat Team, had been relieved after an investigation found "multiple violations of Army regulations and policies, including SHARP and EO violations." During service in the Army, the applicant never sought out help because of being afraid of losing a job and was not afforded PTSD counseling while in the Army. In the end it was not seeking the help the applicant required that ruined a career, which the applicant deeply regrets the decision every day. 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 a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse. Post- service, the applicant has a 30 percent service-connected rating for PTSD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Cannabis Use Disorder. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis of PTSD that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 February 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. homelessness, and post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant's case separation file is void of the Notification of Intent to Separate Memorandum. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 15 July 2015, reflects the applicant was informed by his company commander that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 22 October 2015. The applicant was involved in an alcohol related accident, which resulted in his arrest. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 9 December 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 11 December 2105, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions); suspended for a period of twelve months. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 February 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 December 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 6 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 August 2009 - 4 December 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 August 2010 - 1 February 2011 / 27 June 2013 - 29 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, JSAM, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2; ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2015 - 25 November 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: El Paso County Detention Facility Arrest Supplement, dated 22 May 2015, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated BAC >= .15. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 21 October 2015, reflects the applicant was apprehended by the El Paso Police Department, on 22 May 2015 for driving while intoxicated after he was found in a rolled over vehicle. The odor of an alcoholic beverage was detected emitting from his person and he failed a standardized field sobriety test. He was administered a breathalyzer test that confirmed his consumption of alcohol and revealed his blood alcohol content to be .181 %, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Texas Penal Code. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 29 March 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, cannabis use disorder, moderate, early full remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision; 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 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). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable; a narrative reason change and a reentry (RE) code 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 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 29 March 2017, 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 he was not given proper counsel. 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 his discharge should be upgraded because he learned the president of his administrative separation board had been relieved after an investigation found "multiple violations of Army regulations and policies, including SHARP and EO violations." However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 requests a reentry (RE) code change. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a two combat tours. 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 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 20 February 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. homelessness, and post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. 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 AR20170009866 1