1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 November 2017 b. Date Received: 14 November 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, joined the Army after graduating high school and then married a high school sweet heart. Joining the Army was everything the applicant thought it would be and more. The applicant learned to drive a truck and was proud and happy to be doing what the applicant dreamed of doing during childhood. In 2008, the applicant was stationed at Fort Bliss and finally felt as if life was falling into place. The applicant had a dream job and was stationed in the state where the applicant spent most of childhood. Life was great and in 2009, the applicant received news that the unit would be deploying. No one knew exactly when it would be, but there was plenty of speculation of when it would be, the applicant knew what to expect. During the pre-deployment medical evaluation, it was determined a previous positive PPD (tuberculosis screening), was too much of a risk; and, the applicant could not deploy until completion of medications and had a negative PPD. In September 2009, the applicant had a car accident and does not recall the events which led up to hitting a light pole. The applicant was enroute to PT and had not had much sleep due to a son, who was teething at the time. The applicant was not severely injured, but did have an injury to the shoulder from the seat belt. Doctors decided to rule out any other possibilities of what could have happened before the accident, such as a seizure or narcolepsy. The applicant was then placed on 60 days of convalescence leave to recover from the accident and had numerous tests performed, all while battle buddies were getting ready for deployment. The applicant felt terrible about not deploying and that it could be even longer. The applicant states that after the unit deployed, the applicant was assigned to the rear detachment, which was the worst time in the Army career. The applicant was spoken to in ways the applicant would never speak to another person all because the applicant could not deploy with the unit. The applicant developed depression and began drinking heavily. The wife eventually became worried about the situation and advised the applicant to seek help, which the applicant eventually did. The applicant started therapy and medications to help with the mood and help sleep. The applicant knew starting any new medication would cause nondeployability for ninety days. In that moment, the applicant only wanted to deploy with the unit and not have to deal with the NCOs in the rear detachment. The applicant states, things became worse and it seemed the applicant was court martialed every other week. The NCO's commented that if they could not get the applicant to deploy, then they would have the applicant kicked out. One instance was after a NCO was informed that the applicant had left the identification card at the mental health clinic, the applicant was sentenced to extra duty and a pay cut. Afterwards, the NCOs bullied the applicant for even going to see a therapist, and spoke ill of the applicant to other Soldiers. The applicant did not want to live anymore and was bullied beyond a breaking point because the applicant felt like no one cared. During the separation proceedings, legal counsel told the applicant to fight to stay in because the NCOs did not take the proper measures in disciplining and court-martialing the applicant. The applicant accepted the discharge because the applicant did not believe the family could make it through two more months. Since discharge, it has been hard as the applicant was left with a drinking problem, a ton of debt and almost lost the family. The applicant persevered and family never lost hope. Currently, the applicant lives on a farm with numerous animals and continues the dream job as a truck driver. The applicant is proud of oneself, but the discharges makes it a little difficult. The applicant is ready to put the past in the past and strive to be better, but believes the discharge follows the applicant everywhere. The applicant is two years sober and would love to have the discharge changed in order to move on with life and close that chapter. 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 Mixed Emotional Features. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating or VA records. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant's BH diagnosis is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 June 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 August 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had been counseled numerous times for misconduct ranging from failing to be at his appointed place of duty to not showing up on time. Additionally, he had received Article 15's in the past for his misconduct. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 August 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 August 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 May 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 8 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 10 December 2007 - 22 May 2008 / HD IADT, 16 January 2008 - 22 May 2008 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTOSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report, dated 18 August 2010, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Record - Supplemental Medical Data, dated 30 March 2010, reflects the applicant had been taking medicine for his behavioral health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored letter; five character letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has been sober for two years and has gained employment as a truck driver. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 he was suffering from depression. However, the service record contains no evidence of a depression 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 was harrased by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving 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 28 June 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, a prior period of honorable service, post-service accomplishments, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. 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: Honorable 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 AR20170018829 1