1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2017 b. Date Received: 1 September 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, served as a Combat Medical Health Care Specialist for the duration of enlistment. The applicant performed sick call and all other traditional medical care and simultaneously attached served as a line medic for a platoon of light infantrymen. The applicant essentially performed the job duties of an infantryman as well as a medic for the entire duration in that unit. During that period, the applicant deployed to Afghanistan for seven months and conducted Intensive Training Circuits, for approximately 8 months. Every training cycle that he participated in was held in austere environments and survived with only the food and equipment that one could carry. The majority of the training cycles began with an airborne infiltration with full combat gear that weighed up to 200 pounds. The applicant began to feel moderate to severe pain close to the LCL in both of the knees and which would be exasperated throughout service. During the deployment to Afghanistan, the applicant was the only medical personnel for 30 Soldier. The unit did not have access to any outside food, equipment, electricity or water unless a convoy was tasked with going to a larger COP or FOB. The only medical equipment the applicant had access to, was what he could fit in the bag and there was no larger aide station to report to or receive guidance from. The medical procedures the applicant performed were undocumented and the applicant participated in multiple MEDEVACS under direct fire and the knee pain was further intensified. During foot patrols, possible IEDs were destroyed by EOD through detonation in the spot where they were found. The platoon was never more than 20 meters away from every explosion and they did not receive any ear protection. While deployed, hygiene standards still applied to every Soldier, but the platoon did not have potable water at all times. After shaving with the water provided, the applicant began to experience hair loss beneath the chin, which is still the same to this day. In March 2012, the company experienced a green on blue incident, wherein Afghan Soldiers, took over a guard tower and turned an M249 towards their COP and opened fire on the entire company. In the process of taking over the tower, the Afghan Soldier shot PFC J, a friend of the applicant, in the head and killed him almost instantly. The applicant's squad leader, was also mortally wounded that night attempting to rescue the PFC J. The applicant treated the squad leader and was there to witness his last minutes. Shortly after, the Afghan Soldiers were subdued by close air support and by the time the Afghan Soldier vacated the tower, it was burning down in a raging fire. The applicant along with the platoon sergeant, retrieved PFC J from the tower and was later MEDEVAC'd. The Afghan commanding officer gathered all of the Soldiers and asked the applicant's company to join them in stoning all the Afghan Soldiers that were in collusion with the traitors. After the events of that night, the applicant began to experience PTSD. The applicant states, the PTSD still manifests itself as extended and irrational anger when presented with most unfavorable daily events. The applicant has not received treatment, but will find resources to help cope with this problem as soon as possible. After redeployment, the applicant asked for medical care for these conditions, but as a medic, did not go through the same channels as the infantryman. The applicant was treated in haste by the Battalion PA, without any documentation. The applicant self-medicated for many of the ailments and did not document any of these treatments, as the applicant did not know how valuable it would be in the future. The applicant never went through traditional sick call procedures as Soldiers would receive hostility from their NCO's for going on sick call. The applicant was never offered treatment for PTSD and at the time, no Soldiers admitted that they were experiencing PTSD. In March 2017, the VA medical center in diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, as a result of combat experiences. The applicant believes the bad decision making, should have been met with help and not standard punishment. The applicant states, the incidents described did occur, is a victim of circumstances, and the duties during an Army career. The applicant thanks the Board for considering these circumstances when rendering a decision for an upgrade that would allow benefits and compensation. 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 Occupational Problem. Post service, the applicant has a service-connected disability rating of 70% for the diagnosis of PTSD. 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 10 April 2019 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. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, 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: 28 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 1 June 2013, he operated a motor vehicle while drunk. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 25 July 2013, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 August 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 August 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W1P, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (20 February 2012 - 1 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, CMB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, self-authored statement, nine character statements. 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 was diagnosed with PTSD post service by the VA. He states it was this undiagnosed condition that 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 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits and compensation. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include compensation, 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while in 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 10 April 2019 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. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, 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. 10. 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 AR20170016813 3