1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 October 2017 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, the request is based on circumstance and desire for a better future. The applicant witnessed numerous others get in far more trouble than the applicant, yet received less disciplinary action. The Army knew the applicant was planning to soon ETS and was told by the Sergeant Major the applicant did not earn the GI Bill overseas, and did not see it fit to allow the applicant to have the GI Bill. The applicant was fast tracked to a discharge, solely to prevent access to the GI Bill, which the applicant had been granted previously, but was then pulled back. The applicant's sole interest is to better oneself for the future. The applicant states, one of the matters that led to discharge, was a Company Grade Article 15. A Sergeant had called the applicant a queer and told the applicant to do pushups, for looking at a car too closely. The applicant respectfully declined to do the pushups and proceeded to do the applicant's job. The applicant later learned, the Sergeant was moved for mental health reasons and was not to have any control over lower ranked Soldiers. The applicant had requested to see mental health while overseas and was told by the First Sergeant that the applicant was not seeing anyone because the applicant was not being given the opportunity to claim suicide just to go home. The applicant then had a weapon taken from for 48 hours, while being "smoked" dawn till dusk on both days. The applicant's entire time at Fort Riley was continuously degraded by the infantry Soldiers for being supply and not being like them. The applicant believes that the career would have went entirely different had the applicant not been added to this particular unit. The applicant came home from Iraq to be surprised by the wife and son being gone, the home in boxes, the bank account drained and life as the applicant knew it gone. The applicant did not handle this well and received a DUI and no post driving order. The applicant lived off-post, with nobody willing to help the applicant get to work every day and was forced to drive. When another NCO saw the applicant, the applicant was reported and led to the discharge. The applicant was to ETS just 19 days after discharge and strongly believes the applicant earned the GI Bill. The applicant had deployed and fought for the country, serve nearly 4 years and remained dedicated until discharge. If the applicant had the served under different circumstances, perhaps in a support unit, under respectfully treated conditions, surrounded by supportive individuals, rather than individuals who just seemed to tear the applicant down, the service would have been different. The applicant did not choose to work with the infantry and the unit contributed to the downfall because of fear. The applicant was told by the recruiting officer, to hide ADHD and once in, could not get treatment and it was brushed off. The applicant had an incident before deployment, which led mental health to recommend the applicant not deploy because of a personality and character disorder, but was swept under the rug entirely. The applicant states, all in all, the applicant wanted nothing more than a full military career, but chose a different one, once the applicant discovered how the applicant was being treated for the entire four years. The applicant now wishes the applicant had found a better way to handle the situation, but this is life now and is struggling with the family, fiancé and child. The applicant cannot afford an apartment, let alone any type of future where is worth being looked up to by the children or as a man by the wife. 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, Alcohol Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, Depression and Dependent Personality Disorder. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Personality Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Opioid Dependence, Cannabis Dependence, ADHD and Adjustment Disorder. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (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: 18 January 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 November 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was arrested for Driving Under the Influence, violated a lawful general regulation and was derelict in his duties. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 November 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 December 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 February 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 September 2009 - 22 May 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 22 March 2010, for dereliction in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to maintain accountability of his weapon, while in Iraq (30 January 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $448 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Kansas Standard Arrest Report, dated 5 July 2010, reflects the applicant was arrested for DUI, Second Offense; Refusal to submit to PBT; Transporting an Open Container; and, Contributing to Child Misconduct. Official Notification - Suspension of Installation Driving Privileges, dated 8 July 2010, reflects his post driving privileges were suspended as a result of his arrest by a Junction City Police Officer on 7 July 2010, for Driving under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 13 August 2010, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 5 July 2010. Early that morning, a Junction City police officer responded to a report from a witness that he had an open container of alcohol in his vehicle. The officer made contact with him and detected the odor of alcohol coming from his vehicle. The applicant told the officer he had been drinking. He submitted to standardized field sobriety tests and showed signs of impairment. He refused to submit to a preliminary breath test. Two open containers of alcohol were found in his vehicle. He was placed under arrest and transported to the Junction City Police Department. He submitted to a breath test using the lntoxilyzer 8000 that resulted in a blood alcohol content of .141. He was issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol (second offense) and transporting an open container. FG Article 15, dated 28 October 2010, for wrongfully operating his privately owned vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended (5 October 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty for 45 days; and, restriction for 45 days (suspended). Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Health Evaluation (memo), dated 4 November 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Dependence by HX. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 14-12b 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 had ADHD, but his attempts at receiving treatment were ignored. However, the service record contains no evidence of ADHD 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 and given smoke sessions 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 applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends he believes his discharge was fast-tracked because his leadership wanted to deny him his GI Bill. 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. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 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 educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 13 June 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20170019033 4