1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 May 2017 b. Date Received: 2 June 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's general discharge was inequitable in light of four plus years of honorable service, including 18 months of combat duty in Iraq, and the attenuated pattern of alleged misconduct that was heavily influenced by an abusive arrest by civilian authorities that caused the applicant to miss a third deployment to Iraq; an arrest that was later repudiated by the district attorney. Counsel states, given the PTSD obstacles that the applicant has overcome since discharge and the successful re-integration into civilian life, it would be unjust and inequitable to require the applicant to seek future employment in the Information Technology Field with a general discharge rather than an honorable discharge in light of honorable service over four years and the attenuated circumstances surrounding the alleged pattern of misconduct as described in the allied legal brief provided with the application. 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 Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with MST, PTSD, Depression, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Alcohol Dependence. 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 19 February 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnoses of PTSD and MST), and post-service accomplishments. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 September 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 September 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His misconduct on and off post. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 May 2006 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 4 years, 7 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 January 2003 - 21 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (16 October 2003 - 11 April 2004 / 1 February 2005 - 14 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICAM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Recorder's Court of Chatham County, Record of First Appearance/ Advisement/ Bond Hearing, Felony Arrest, dated 7 May 2007, reflects the applicant had been arrested for: Terroristic Threats and Acts; Disorderly Conduct and Public Drunkenness. Chatham County Sheriff's Department, Uniform Book Form, dated 3 June 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended and charged with: Driving under Influence; Driving Less Safe (Alcohol); No Proof of Insurance; and, Driving Without License on Person. Charge Sheet, dated 9 July 2007, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violation of the Article 92, UCMJ, the applicant having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Captain J. V., to remain within the boundaries of the Hunter Army Airfield military installation, an order which it was his duty to obey, did at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, on or about 3 June 2007, fail to obey the same by leaving the boundaries of the Hunter Army Airfield military installation . Charge II: violation of Article 111, UCMJ, the applicant, in Savannah, Georgia, on or about 3 June 2007, near the Bank of America parking lot, located at 2112 Bull Street, did operate a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in his breath was 0.08 grams or greater as shown by chemical analysis. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 16 July 2007, the applicant offered to: Accept trial by Summary Court-Martial; Plead as follows at a Summary Court-Martial: To Charge I and its specification: Guilty; to Charge II and its specification: Guilty; To unconditionally waive any right that he may have to an administrative separation board for any administrative separation action recommending a discharge with a characterization of service as other than honorable that may be initiated as a result of the misconduct underlying the above-referenced charges. In exchange for his actions as stated, the Convening Authority agreed to refer this case to a Summary Court-Martial. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 September 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA medical records, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; brief in support of upgrade; medical records; two letters of support; separation documents; court documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Counsel states the applicant has obtained employment; is pursuing his degree; and successfully completed the Veterans Village program. 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. 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. 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. Counsel 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. Counsel contends the VA has granted applicant a service connected disability for 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 reflects that on 11 September 2007, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible 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. Counsel contends applicant was subjected to an abusive arrest off post. 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. Counsel contends that applicant had good service which included a combat tour. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 19 February 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD and MST), and post-service accomplishments. 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 AR20170010176 1