1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 October 2017 b. Date Received: 22 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, while stationed in Korea, the applicant became noticeably depressed and suffered from constant anxiety, which both increased over time. The applicant began drinking and had an alcohol related incident and was referred to Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The applicant completed ASAP, but believed it did not fully help the source of the problem. The applicant states the chain of command did not seem to be concerned with the matter as long as the applicant did not have any further incidents under their command. The applicant continued to have trouble and was informed by the Battery Commander about being separated with a general discharge, so the commander would not have to keep the applicant in Korea and do extra paperwork. Since discharge, the applicant has served food at a fundraiser event and has helped the homeless on numerous occasions in the applicant's hometown. The applicant has bought food and water for them or bought them meals and provided them with blankets and coats for the winter. The applicant continues to volunteer along with the wife helping the homeless and less fortunate. Their plan is to continue contributing to society and helping in whatever way they are able. The applicant's post- service contributions warrant an upgrade. The applicant has not had any trouble with the law or in the community, but the discharge has made it difficult to find a good career. The applicant desires to start a career in law enforcement as a jailer and continue an education to provide a better living for the family. The applicant further details contentions in a self-authored statement. 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 Alcohol Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant has 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 24 January 2020, 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), a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 January 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 10 July 2013, he received an Article 15 for violating 2ID Command Policy Letter#10-1, Curfew, Pass, and Leave, dated 21 March 2013, by wrongfully being off post past curfew, which is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 3 January 2014, he received a Vacation of Suspension on his 10 July 2013, Article 15 by failing to go at the time prescribed place of duty, to wit 0600 platoon accountability formation on 18 December 2013, and 0630 accountability formation on 4 November 2013, which is in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to perform required duties while participating in Warpath 3, as it was his duty to, which is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 18 December 2013, while receiving special pay under 37 USC Sec. 310, being on post as a Charge of Quarters NCO, were found sleeping upon his post, which is in violation of Article 113, UCMJ. On 1 July 2014, he received an Article 15, for failing to obey a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer to not go off post or words to that effect, by going off post on 7 April 2014, 14 April 2014, and 15 April 2014, which is in violation of Article 90, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 December 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 May 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 14S10 2B, Avenger Crewmember / 5 years, 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 July 2009 - 22 May 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (2 July 2010 - 26 June 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, JSAM, ARCOM, AAM-3, NATOMDL, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2012 - 31 January 2013 / Fully Capable 1 February 2013 - 13 May 2013 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 July 2014, for willfully disobeying a lawful command to not to go off post (7, 14 and 15 April 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 10 July 2013, for violating a lawful general order by wrongfully being off post past curfew (22 June 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,096 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 3 January 2014, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 10 July 2013, was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (4 November and 18 December 2013); derelict in the performance of his duties (11 December 2013); and, being on post as a Charge of Quarters NCO, was found sleeping upon his post (18 December 2013). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 September 2014, 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, In early remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicants he has not had any trouble with the law and volunteers in his community helping the homeless and less fortunate. 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 and anxiety, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of a depression or anxiety diagnosis. 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 record shows that on 3 September 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. 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 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 24 January 2020, 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), a prior period of honorable service, and post- service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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 AR20170019871 1