1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 December 2017 b. Date Received: 18 December 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's separation was based on conduct that was a direct result of diagnosed, combat-related PTSD. An upgrade is warranted based on equity and a liberal consideration of the circumstances. On or about 25 February 2015, the applicant first reported symptoms of anxiety, traumatic nightmares, little pleasure in doing things, depression and trouble sleeping. Although experiencing these symptoms since deployment to Afghanistan, this was the first time the applicant sought professional help. Over the course of the next year, the applicant did not receive relief from symptoms with prescribed medication. He also suffered from numerous physical injuries and chronic pain, for which he was to be medically separated. The applicant attempted to drown his symptoms by excessive exercise and self-medication with alcohol. His substance abuse ultimately led to a 28-day in-patient treatment for substance abuse in March 2016. Following his in-patient stay, he was formally diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant was treated for PTSD related symptoms since early 2015, but not formally diagnosed with PTSD until approximately March 2016. After being released from in-patient care, the applicant's command initiated separation proceedings for drug abuse on or about 25 February 2016. The applicant does not have the full records of the separation action, and no such records appear in the official military file based on applicant's request for military record. The documents appear to be lost. Despite having over six years of service at the time of separation and receiving an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization, no separation board was conducted. There are no records available to explain why and how this happened. The applicant's notice of separation also cites to financial debt owed for overpayment of BAH. That debt is currently being paid, however the applicant was never convicted or charged with fraud or misconduct related to the accidental overpayment. Accordingly, while it is mentioned on the initiation of separation document, it is not a significant cause for separation and does not impact the overall character of his service. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, notes indicate the applicant was initially seen in Behavioral Health (BH) in November 2014. In April 2016, BH formally diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. VA records indicate that the applicant has been diagnosed with multiple BH conditions and PTSD. However, given that the basis for separation is not in file, no statement regarding medical mitigation can be made at this time. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2018, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 March 2010 / 6 years, 33 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 35G10, Geospatial Intelligence Imagery Analyst / 6 years, 2 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: United Kingdom, SWA / Afghanistan (25 June 2011 - 26 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 201 -18 June 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 13 April 2014, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Wrongful Use and Possession of Steroids, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The applicant was interviewed and admitted he used Boldenone and "Tren" (Trenbolone), and a subsequent consent search of his quarters led to the seizure of one vial containing an unknown liquid and eight syringes. The applicant stated the vial originally contained Tren, but he placed a legal substance in the vial after consuming the Tren. FG Article 15, dated 8 June 2015, for wrongfully using Bodenone and Trenbolone (between 16 April and 16 September 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and an oral reprimand. The applicant provided a copy of the Commander's Report, dated 25 February 2016, reflects the applicant received an Article 15; and was command referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The specific, factual reasons for the separation action recommended: The applicant wrongfully took and possessed anabolic steroids, Boldenon and Trenbolone, DEA Schedule Ill Controlled Substance; He wrongfully used and possessed spice; He is indebted to the U.S. Army in the amount of $23,719.75 for Overpayment of BAH; and, He recently tested positive for illicit drugs, cocaine. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided copies of his medical records, which reflect he was diagnosed with: Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic; and, Other Substance Use Disorder, Severe. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief with allied documents; and, medical treatment records. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions in regards to him being diagnosed with PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge were carefully considered. The applicant provided medical records to support his contention. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends based on his years of service he was entitled to an administrative separation board. Barring evidence to the contrary, the available record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation would have been met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant further 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, 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 3 August 2018, 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 AR20170019244 1