1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 July 2017 b. Date Received: 28 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, suffers from PTSD. The applicant officially became a disabled veteran in June 2017, served the country, went to Afghanistan and returned a different person. Since then, the applicant has grown and would like to back to school. The applicant was suffering from deep depression and PTSD, but through counseling was able to get to this point and believes has earned this upgrade. The applicant apologizes for the actions leading up to the discharge. The applicant now understands how the actions garnered a negative perception and the United States Armed Forces. The applicant states almost immediately after returning from Afghanistan, was court- martialed and accused of a sexual assault crime, and was acquitted of all charges. During the case, the applicant became flagged and barred, which put a tremendous strain on the dynamics of the household and relationships with others. The applicant was delayed in acquiring housing and getting insurance for a son and was not allowed to make E-5, or allowed to relocate with the unit and fulfill orders. Over the 9 months, the applicant fell into a deep state of depression and also had PTSD, which the applicant was unaware of at the time. The applicant states, even though the outcome of the trial resulted favorably, the damage was done. From people dissociating themselves, to feeling isolated, scrutinized, and frowned upon by peers and other individuals within the new unit, the applicant's pride and military spirit began to diminish. The applicant started to feel the physical consequences of one's well-being. The applicant still suffers from depression, but is now receiving disability for PTSD. At the time, the applicant's lapse of judgement made believing that self-medication could be a remedy for the pain the applicant was feeling was acceptable. The applicant believed there was no one in the corner from the Army that cared enough to check on the applicant before or after the case. The applicant states, on one Friday, after physical training, the applicant consumed half of oxymorphone for back pain. The following Monday there was a urinalysis test, where the applicant registered positive for the oxymorphone. The applicant understands the errors of self- medication and has gained a fond appreciation for the fact that the screening was only two days after consuming the oxymorphone. By testing positive, it cancelled the opportunity to take more and develop a substance dependency. Today, to help with the applicant's depression and PTSD, the applicant keeps active and speaks to others who can understand or at least sympathize with these similar feelings. The applicant loved the time spent in the Armed Forces and desires an upgrade to reflect this. The applicant had many accomplishments and received many medals, accommodations and ribbons and saw a future where not only for advancement, but also to flourish in the United States Armed Forces. The applicant's negligence cut short the service, but now requests an upgrade. With refocusing goals, the applicant desires to go back to school. Alongside further education, the applicant wants to excel in a career. The applicant currently has a job due to the skills learned in the Army, however, many of the jobs on base require an honorable discharge status. When this occurs, it hinders the applicant's growth in the company and affects the lives of the applicant's children. The stability that the Army provides through job security is something the applicant's loved ones became accustomed to, and attaining that level of security in this field is nearly impossible without the change to honorable. The applicant implores the Board to notice that the applicant recognized and corrected the character flaws exhibited in the past, and requests the Board's forgiveness and its help in advancing a career by upgrading the discharge status. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, and the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), notes indicate the applicant's behavioral health records were limited and there is no diagnoses of PTSD. In summary, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 October 2018, 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 March 2010 / 3 years, 30 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 3 years, 4 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (11 March 2011 - 8 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, AGCM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 30 April 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Traffic Accident Failure to Clear the Rear (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 25 May 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Aggravated Assault - Using glass bottles, ETC (Off Post); Assault - Consummated by a Battery (Off Post); and, False Official Statement (On Post). CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 22 June 2012, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault when he engaged in sexual intercourse with SPC [redacted] against her will. Military Police Report, dated 22 October 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Fleeing the Scene of a Traffic Accident (Off Post); Traffic Accident: Failure to Maintain Control (Off Post); Owning an Unregistered Vehicle (Off Post); and, Operating an Unregistered Vehicle (Off Post). CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 25 June 2013, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Oxymorphone which was later detected by a UUI. Investigation further established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Failure to Obey Order or Regulation (AR 600-85) when he was found in possession of Spice. Military Police Report, dated 2 August 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault - Consummated by a Battery (Off Post). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and a self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has obtained employment and attends counseling for his PTSD. 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(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct (Drug Abuse), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions that no one was in his corner to help him when he needed it, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 applicant contends that he 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 October 2018, 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 AR20170014416 1