1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 April 2017 b. Date Received: 17 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, a change to the narrative reason for separation, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper and inequitable because the applicant should have been properly evaluated, diagnosed and treated for combat-related PTSD prior to discharge. The applicant contends the difficulties with the Army began upon return from combat, while suffering from the undiagnosed combat-related PTSD. This led to a civilian arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and several minor interactions stemming from self- medicating with alcohol to counter the lingering effects of PTSD. The applicant contends under the specific circumstances of the DUI case at the genesis of this separation, it was not a serious offense, the Army failed to follow its own regulation, and it conflicts with the directive from the Secretary of Defense to consider and show leniency if there is evidence of PTSD from a combat experience that affected the conduct in question. There was uncontroverted evidence of combat-related PTSD from two natural medical sources the VA and Parkland Hospital. Evidence of record shows a prior records review was conducted on 26 October 2016. 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 the applicant underwent VA C&P exam and was diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant is 100% service connected for PTSD by the VA. Based on the available information and in accordance with the Liberal Guidance memorandum, the applicant has a Behavioral Health condition, PTSD, which mitigates some of his misconduct which led to separation. In a travel panel hearing conducted in San Antonio, TX on 6 November 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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: 11 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: Documents submitted by the applicant: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: driving a vehicle while drunk on 18 January 2013 and damaging government property on 17 April. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2011 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (16 March 2012 to 11 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 3 July 2015, for driving the wrong way on a one-way street and for having a blood alcohol level of .227 grams alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood (18 January 2013). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 28 days (13 May 2013 to 10 June 2013) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 July 2013, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Alcohol Abuse. It was noted that the applicant was enrolled and following up with ASAP at the time due to alcohol related infractions. He was reporting heavy alcohol use despite his enrollment in ASAP. It was recommended to the command to order prohibit alcohol use with close monitoring. The applicant was susceptible for additional problems/issues related to his current amount of alcohol use. Also it was noted that the applicant had no history of BH treatment or issues, did not have any BH concerns (aside from alcohol abuse). He did not have any diagnosis of a major mental illness at that time. Misconduct should have been managed through administrative and disciplinary channels, and did not represent mental illness. He did not fall below medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501. He was not suffering from any deployment related mental health issues or traumatic brain injury. He was psychologically cleared for administrative separation. Parkland Health & Hospital System medical evaluation, dated 15 January 2016, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, Depression and Cocaine use disorder, mild abuse. Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Rating Decision letter, dated 8 June 2016, reflects the applicant was assigned a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent for PTSD with self-medication resulting in alcohol use disorder, mild. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and legal brief al all listed enclosures (1-19). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since discharge he entered the University of North Texas in the summer semester of 2016, where he achieved a grade point average of 3.25 and in the fall semester of 2016 he achieved a 4.0, leading to his being named to the President's List of Scholar and as of the date of his application he was enrolled at Southern Methodist University and during well. 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, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" 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, a change to the narrative reason for separation, and a change to his reentry eligibility (RE) code. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol policies. By abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 14-12c, 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. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending his discharge was improper and inequitable because he should have been properly evaluated, diagnosed and treated for combat-related PTSD prior to his discharge. He contends his difficulties with the Army began upon his return from combat, while suffering from the undiagnosed combat-related PTSD. This led to a civilian arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and several minor interactions stemming from his self- medicating with alcohol to counter the lingering effects of PTSD. He contends under the specific circumstances of the DUI case at the genesis of this separation, it was not a serious offense, the Army failed to follow its own regulation, and it conflicts with the directive from the Secretary of Defense to consider and show leniency if there is evidence of PTSD from a combat experience that affected the conduct in question. There was uncontroverted evidence of combat-related PTSD from two natural medical sources the VA and Parkland Hospital. The applicant's contentions were noted; per the Board's Medical Officer in the applicant prior records review, the applicant did not have a behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to his separation from the Army. It was noted that in a medical note dated 29 Jan 2013 and a legal note dated 2 May 2016, the applicant attributed DUI incident to getting lost off post, driving the wrong way at an intersection and accidently ending up southbound. The incidents of breaking the locker handle was described as accidental and driving with a suspended license was not attributed to drinking. According to electronic medical records, the applicant was first seen by ASAP on 29 January 2013 in which he described DUI incident as drinking two beers and turning down the wrong road as he drove home. He was not forthcoming about alcohol use, denied having a problem with alcohol, denied needing treatment, and answered questions in an irritable manner. He missed several ASAP appointments, was minimally engaged, continued drinking while enrolled, and stopped attending in April 2013. He contends that he was not screened for PTSD; however in a medical note dated 22 March 2013, the applicant screened negative for PTSD and Depression. He was also psychiatrically cleared by Behavioral Health on 12 July 2013 and screened negative (36/70) for PTSD. He provided a medical evaluation from Parkland Health & Hospital System, dated 15 January 2016, which indicated PTSD, Depression and Cocaine use disorder, mild abuse. He also provided a VA Disability Rating Decision letter, dated 8 June 2016, which indicated a rating of 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD with self-medication resulting in alcohol use disorder. Despite post-service diagnosis of PTSD, at the time of the incidents, the applicant did not endorse symptoms consistent with PTSD, was deemed responsible for his behavior, knew right from wrong, and was psychologically cleared for administrative separation. 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. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a travel panel hearing conducted in San Antonio, TX on 6 November 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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. 11. 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 AR20170010165 6