1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 April 2019 b. Date Received: 23 October 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, in accordance with the Secretary of Defense Memorandum dated 3 September 2014, the separation authority failed to include pertinent information. During the separation process the separation authority failed to identify in the Commander's Report, "The separation (does) (does not) involve a medical condition that is related to the sexual assault, to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." Therefore, the applicant believes the discharge was not fair and equitable based on an incomplete separation recommendation. 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 Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood/with disturbance of emotions/with mixed emotional features/with prolonged depressed mood, Alcohol Disorders, Depression, Hallucinations, Occupational Problem, Partner Relational Problem, History of traumatic brain injury, and Marital Problem. The applicant is 100% service-connected; 50% for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Unspecified Depressive Disorder and PTSD. In summary, the applicant had 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 13 June 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and a prior period of honorable service. 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 (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14, Sec II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on 17 March 2015, he was tried by Uijeongbu District Court and found guilty of the Roads Traffic Act (DUI). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 June 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 September 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 February 2010 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / 1 year college / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 9 years, 9 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 15 February 2006 - 19 August 2008 / HD IADT, 17 October 2006 - 29 March 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 March 2009 - 4 March 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, MOVSM, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 March 2015, for wrongfully violating a lawful General Order, by wrongfully not being in his off-post residence by 0100 (12 February 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1225 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. ROK Summary Order (memo), dated 19 March 2015, reflects that the Uijeongbu District Court issued a summary order in the case of the applicant. The court found the applicant guilty as charged (DUI) and sentenced him to a 1, 000,000 Won fine. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 20 March 2015, for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and for failing to comply with Command Policy Letter #2, Supplementary Curfew Policy-Specific Guidance for 501st Sustainment Brigade Personnel, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 12 February 2015, at approximately 0057, he was involved in an accident in Yangju, South Korea, in which he lost control of his vehicle and struck a sidewalk. The Korean National Police (KNP) administered an alcohol breath test which resulted in a blood alcohol content of 0.063 percent. He was administered a second breath test when he was transported to the Provost Marshals Office which resulted in a blood alcohol content of 0.090 percent, well above the legal limit in the Republic of Korea. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 1 March 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; VBA Adjudication letter; DD Form 2648; SOFA TA# 019-15; DD Form 2708; DD Form 268; Suspension of Driving Privileges; International Hold Memo; Adverse Flag; Uijeongbu Summary Order; International Hold Removal; ROK Summary Order; Reprimand memo; Separation packet; and, Enlisted Record Brief. 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. 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 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. At the time of the applicant's discharge he had been found guilty by a civil court for Driving Under the Influence and was sentenced to a 1,000,000 Won fine. The applicant contends his discharge is inequitable and unfair because the Commander's Report did not indicate whether or not if he had a medical condition related to sexual assault, to include PTSD. 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. Further, the evidence of the record reflects the applicant consulted with counsel on 24 June 2015, and indicated that he had not filed an unrestricted report of sexual assault in the past 24 months. The applicant's intermediate commander, on 24 July 2015, also indicated in his recommendation to the separation authority that the applicant had not filed an unrestricted report of sexual assault within 24 months of initiation of the separation action. Therefore, it appears, the separation authority determined the applicant did not have a medical condition related to sexual assault, as indicated by the applicant and his intermediate commander. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends the VA has granted him 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. 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 13 June 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and a prior period of honorable service. 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 AR20170017761 2