1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 June 2017 b. Date Received: 5 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade would allow the applicant to further an education to the fullest. The applicant served the country with great pride and now needs to have the same in civilian life. 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 Specified Sedative/hypnotic/anxiolytic Dependence, Alcohol Abuse, Amphetamine Use, Opioid Related Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety. The applicant is 50% service-connected for Adjustment Disorder from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety Disorder NOS, Polysubstance Abuse, Depression, Opiate/Meth/Alcohol/Cannabis Use Disorder, Other Psychotic Disorders, and PTSD due to MST. In summary, the applicant has 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 24 January 2020, 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. in- service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD, MST, and OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. (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: 12 July 2016 c. Separation Facts: 1 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 22 December 2015, he physically controlled a vehicle while drunk in the state of Florida. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (26 July 2014 - 23 October 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Florida DUI Uniform Traffic Citation, dated 22 December 2015, reflects the applicant was charged with: Driving Vehicle While Under The Influence. CG Article 15, dated 24 February 2016, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (26, 27, 28 January and 2 February 2016). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 23 March 2016, for driving a motor vehicle on 22 December 2015 in the state of Florida with a blood alcohol content of .118 percent, in violation of Florida law. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 April 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. Commander's Report, dated 1 June 2016, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, dated 26 November 2014, for failing to report. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $447 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 3 May 2016; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 4 May 2016; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 23 June 2016; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 28 June 2016; and, From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 5 July 2016. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 15 days AWOL, 3 May 2016 - 4 May 2016 / NIF AWOL, 23 June 2016 - 27 June 2016 / NIF AWOL, 5 July 2016 - 12 July 2016 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. 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 that he had good service. 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 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 24 January 2020, 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. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD, MST, and OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / RE-1 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 AR20170009916 1