1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2017 b. Date Received: 25 July 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, was an excellent Soldier, knew the job extremely well, and was well liked at every unit by everyone including the commanders. The one mistake the applicant made ended an Army career and the applicant would like that to be on the best terms possible. The applicant tried to be a great Soldier every day and although just a specialist, the applicant took responsibility for fellow troops who needed guidance. When the applicant was not in a team leader position, the applicant helped make the first line supervisor's job as easy as possible by ensuring the applicant kept up with any training or tasks. The applicant was on time every day and loved the Army and especially the job. The applicant's Army Physical Fitness Test score was never below the mid-200s and was normally closer to the maximum of 300. Though the applicant never attended a promotion board, the applicant studied for the board and helped others study for their boards. The favorite part of the Army was the job as a Health Care Specialist, which the applicant could not have asked for a more enjoyable position. The applicant took pride in taking care of patients, whether they were members of the platoon in Korea, or the inmates while stationed in Fort Leavenworth. The applicant took the job very seriously and made sure the applicant knew as much as possible to perform at the highest level. The applicant's most recent commander, who had initiated the applicant's separation proceedings, frequently mentioned that the applicant was the best medic and was extremely sorry to let the applicant go. The applicant understands why the Army chaptered the applicant, as the Army holds Soldiers to higher standards than the rest of the population. The applicant not only made a mistake that ended a career, but now it is holding the applicant back from completing an education and being able to further help patients involved with the Army. The applicant was issued three traffic tickets within a year, which led to on post driving privileges being suspended for a year. The applicant never received the decision on the appeal for a restricted license, so the applicant forged the document, which reflected receipt. The applicant knows this was wrong and regrets it every day. If the applicant could turn back time, there is no way this would have been considered. Not because of being caught, but it also made the applicant feel like a real low life doing it and that should have stopped the applicant, but the applicant did not trust the gut feeling. The applicant enlisted for four years and then reenlisted for two years, but was not able to finish the reenlistment. The applicant completed the original enlistment honorably and believes the discharge should be upgraded due to dedication to the Army and because of being discharged much earlier than the applicant had hoped. The applicant believes this was punishment enough for the mistake and asks the Board to take this into consideration when making their decision. 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 ADHD and Adjustment Disorder. VA records indicate applicant has been diagnosed with Opioid Dependence. In summary, the applicant did not have 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 15 March 2019, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 11 August 2016, he submitted a false official record pertaining to restricted driving privileges. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 18 May 2017, the applicant waived his rights to consult with A JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 July 2016 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 129 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 4 years, 1 month, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 April 2013 - 5 July 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 December 2016, for with intent to deceive, submit an official record, to wit: installation Hearing Officer's Decision Regarding Suspended Driving Privileges, dated 11 August 2016, which record was false in that his request for restricted driving privileges was denied, and was known by the applicant to be so false (11 August 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $1,041 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty for 30 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 16 February 2017, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 19 December 2016, was vacated because the applicant disobeyed a lawful order not to drive on post (17 January 2017). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 April 2017, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: ADHD and Anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; Commander's Report; and, Notification of Intent to Separate. 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. 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. 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 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 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 15 March 2019, 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 e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20170011173 1