1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 December 2017 b. Date Received: 26 December 2017 c. Counsel: None 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, was a good Soldier. After serving in combat, the applicant began experiencing issues with focusing and started drinking more. The applicant's PTSD and other symptoms were more frequent and the applicant did not realize what was happening. The applicant would like to take advantage of the GI Bill. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record and the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) no content regarding the applicant was found. Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicates the applicant is 60% service connected; 50% for Major Depressive Disorder. The Veteran's Affairs problem list includes the following Behavioral Health (BH) diagnoses: MDD, Bipolar Disorder, type I, mixed; Alcohol Abuse, Opioid Use Disorder. The applicant has also submitted a letter from a VA psychiatrist which states applicant is being treated for PTSD, MDD and ADHD. Based on the available information, the applicant has a mitigating BH condition for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 November 2018, and by a 4-1 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 April 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he wrongfully used cocaine, being AWOL, disrespectful to a commissioned officer and over indulgence in alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF, government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 April 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 November 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 5 August 2003 to 10 April 2004 f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 December 2004, for without authority absented himself from his unit (16 November 2004 until 15 December 2004); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $596 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Summary Court-Martial, dated 14 February 2005, the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses; failure to report, wrongful use of cocaine, overindulgence of alcohol and disrespect to a commissioned officer. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $823 pay for one month and confinement for 30 days. The complete court martial proceedings are not contained in the available record. Report of Medical Examination, dated 21 March 2005, relates there was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance to warrant disposition through medical channels. He was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action and or training deemed appropriate by Command. The applicant received a negative counseling statement for being AWOL. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 29 days, 16 November 2004 until 15 December 2004, returned to unit; and military confinement for 30 days because of Summary Court-Martial; however, this period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29, dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant submitted a VA letter, dated 27 November 2017, that shows he had been treated for PTSD) chronic, major depressive disorder, recurrent and ADHD. He also had history of alcohol use disorder, opiate use disorder, cannabis use disorder, stimulant use disorder, all currently in full sustained remission. He also experienced severe PTSD symptoms and depression. He completed psychosocial treatments including outpatient and residential programs for PTSD and substance use disorders. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); VA Letter; VA, Review of PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (six pages). 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. 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 did not provide independent corroborating evidence demonstrating either that 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 seeks relief contending, he was a good Soldier. 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, after serving in combat, he began experiencing issues with focusing and started drinking more. 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 that led to the separation action under review. The applicant also contends, his PTSD and other symptoms were more frequent and he did not realize what was happening with him. The applicant submitted a VA letter that relates he was treated for PTSD) chronic, major depressive disorder, recurrent and ADHD. He had a history of alcohol use disorder, opiate use disorder, cannabis use disorder, stimulant use disorder, all currently in full sustained remission. The applicant would like to take advantage of the GI Bill. 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 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 November 2018, and by a 4-1 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: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY: While the Board found your separation was both proper and equitable; as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) finds sufficient evidence to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph14-12a, narrative reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation program designator (SPD) code to JKN. 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 AR20180000222 1