1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 December 2016 b. Date Received: 18 September 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, he endured thirteen months of daily firefights in Iraq, witnessed an IED injure his friends, which caused undiagnosed PTSD. He was never screened for PTSD after returning from Iraq. The VA increased his disability rating to reflect the true severity of his PTSD. He had a decorated military career prior to experiencing the adverse effects of PTSD. He had no Incidents of misconduct since he began psychiatric treatment. His change in behavior occurred after his PTSD was exacerbated by his assignment to Fort Lewis. 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) there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct, which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. The Applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD and mental status at the time of the misconduct mitigate the offenses. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 October 2018, 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 service- connected PTSD diagnosis). 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; use of a controlled illegal drug (cocaine). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 October 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / GED Certificate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14S10, Avenger Crewmember / 2 years, 4 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Iraq, 7 August 2004 to 7 August 2005 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded IO (Inspection Other), dated 6 September 2005, for COC. FG Article 15, dated 3 November 2005, for wrongfully use cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance between (6 August 2005 and 6 September 2005); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 7 December 2005, for fleeing apprehension by running away from an armed forces policeman, a person authorized to apprehend him (20 November 2005); having been restricted to the limits of North Fort Lewis, by a person authorized to do so, did break said restriction (20 November 2005); in a public place, wrestling on a sidewalk, drunk and disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed force (20 November 2005); forfeiture of $571 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction to the limits of N. Fort Lewis, no time period specified. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 January 2006, relates the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative and judicial proceedings. He was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA entitlements letter, dated 9 September 2015, indicates the applicant was service connected for PTSD and granted an evaluation of 70 percent effective 30 May 2012, his evaluation was increased to 100 percent effective 24 July 2015. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages); attorney's letter; attorney's brief, Veterans Legal Institute (22 pages); Exhibit 1, self-authored statement (12 pages); Exhibit 2, applicant's declaration (five pages); Exhibits 3, 4, 8, and 9, support statements (12 pages) Exhibit 5, VA entitlements (three pages); Exhibit 6, DD Form 214; Exhibit 7, program audit (2); also a second DD Form 214; discharge orders 044-0025; preparation counseling checklist (three pages); and an Enlisted Record Brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's attorney states in his brief that he earned an Associate's Degree from Golden West College and has been a valuable member of his community. 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 general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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 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 through counsel seeks relief contending, he endured thirteen months of daily firefights in Iraq, witnessed an IED injure his friends, which caused the undiagnosed PTSD. The record of evidence substantiates the applicant was deployed in a combat zone (Iraq) and was awarded the Combat Action Badge. The applicant further contends, he was never screened for PTSD after returning from Iraq. The record of evidence shows that the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation which does not indicate he was screened for PTSD, however, he was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. The applicant also contends, the VA increased his disability rating to reflect the true severity of his PTSD. The applicant submitted a VA document which indicates he was assigned 70 percent after being evaluation for PTSD effective, 30 May 2012; his evaluation was increased to 100 percent effective 24 July 2015. The applicant additionally contends, he had a decorated military career prior to experiencing the adverse effects of PTSD. 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 further contends, he had no Incidents of misconduct since he began psychiatric treatment. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, his change in behavior occurred after his PTSD was exacerbated by his assignment to Fort Lewis. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his assignment to Fort Lewis exacerbated his PTSD. 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 3 October 2018, 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 service-connected PTSD diagnosis). 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 AR20170018044 1