1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 October 2017 b. Date Received: 23 October 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his type of discharge was inappropriately given. His DD Form 214 reflects many accommodations during his time of service including imminent danger pay. He feels his commanding officer was trying to make an example of him unfairly and gave him an unfair discharge. He was suffering from PTSD (and still am currently) that was not yet diagnosed, despite requesting in patient treatment more than once that was denied. He was not given the opportunity to change command as he should have been. He is unable to meet his personal health needs through the VA, as well as educational benefits and other accommodations given to honorably discharged Veterans. He has been homeless for a year. He has struggled with this for a long time, since his discharge it is his biggest struggle and barrier to getting his life back. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with the behavioral health conditions of Dysthymia and Panic Disorder. He told army providers he had been previously diagnosed with PTSD and also told this to the VA, but there is no diagnosis of PTSD anywhere in his medical records. Due to the nature of the behavioral health conditions, they do not mitigate the multiple offense. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, homelessness, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 1 November 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; two offenses of using illegal drugs (D-Amphetamines), two DUIs w/ two GOMORs for those offenses, four day AWOL, breaking restriction and three failure to report to his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 October 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / separation approved the applicant's unconditional waiver. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 November 2006 / 4 years, 19 weeks / moral waiver, 16 November 2006 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 11 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 24 March 2008 to 19 March 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 April 2010, for wrongful use of D-Amphetamines between (2 January 2010 and 5 January 2010); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay for two months, extra duty for and restriction 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 27 May 2010, revealed the applicant was under investigation for driving under the influence of alcohol, no insurance, failed to obey traffic light, T.O.C. liquor, off post. A positive urinalysis test coded IO (Inspection Other), dated 14 June 2010, for DAMP. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 June 2010, for driving under the influence of alcohol. He provided a breath sample that indicated a blood alcohol concentration which reflected a BAC of 0.11 percent. It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Oklahoma or on Fort Sill with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. Military Police Report, dated 24 June 2010, relates the applicant was under investigation for actual physical control of a vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of .08 or more, on post. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 July 2010, for driving under the influence of alcohol. He provided a breath sample which reflected a BAC of 0.13 percent, well over the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAC to operate a motor vehicle on Fort Sill. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 August 2010, shows that the applicant met retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warrants disposition through medical channels. His TBI screen was negative and had no significant signs or symptoms of TBI. His PTSD screen was high (PCL-M = 72 especially for insomnia) but he did not have clinically significant signs that warrant disposition through MEB channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative (or judicial) action deemed appropriate by command. FG Article 15, dated 1 October 2010, for wrongful use of D-Amphetamines between (11 June 2010 and 14 June 2010); and without authority; absent himself from his unit (11 June 2010 until 14 June 2010); having been restricted to the limits of Fort Sill, Oklahoma, by a person authorized to do so, did break said restriction (27 May 2010);and without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x3 (21 May 2010, 18 May 2010 and 17 April 2010); forfeiture of $723 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty for and restriction 45 days. He received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 4 days, 11 June 2010 to 14 June 2010; returned to unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 19 August 2010, revealed that the physician surmised the applicant attempted suicide. He was receiving counseling at Community Mental Health Services for PTSD, depressive disorder and anxiety. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages) and a DD Form 214. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and document 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, his type of discharge was inappropriately given. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, his DD Form 214 reflects many accommodations during his time of service including imminent danger pay. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service to include his combat service, prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant also contends, he feels his commanding officer was trying to make an example of him unfairly and gave him an unfair discharge. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 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 applicant contends, he was suffering from PTSD (and still am currently) that was not yet diagnosed, despite requesting in patient treatment more than once that was denied. The record of evidence shows the physician surmised that the applicant while undergoing his separation physical attempted suicide. He also received counseling at Community Mental Health Services for PTSD, depressive disorder and anxiety. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. The applicant contends, he was not given the opportunity to change command as he should have been. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant's discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. Further, the applicant contends, he is unable to meet his personal health needs through the VA, as well as educational benefits and other accommodations given to honorably discharged Veterans. 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. Additionally, the applicant contends, he has been homeless for a year. Eligibility for housing supportive program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. Lastly, the applicant contends, he has struggled with this for a long time, since his discharge it is his biggest struggle and barrier to getting his life back. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued 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 12 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, homelessness, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20170017441 6