1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 November 2017 b. Date Received: 11 December 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, is working on building a business in the fitness industry and would like to be in good standing with the military. The applicant states in order for things to change, one must change for things to become better. The applicant states, in mid-2011, the applicant was jumped by eight Soldiers in Germany. The applicant never got over the incident, and as a result, stopped caring about life in general and a military career. The applicant could not trust military personnel, especially considering nothing ever happened to the guys who jumped the applicant. It was as if the incident was swept under the rug. The applicant states from that point on, the applicant went downhill and began drinking every night, not going to formations and not caring. The applicant has worked on oneself over the years and is currently working towards starting a gym. The applicant has an Associate's Degree in kinesiology, a massage therapy license, personal training and group fitness certifications and is trying to give back to the community. The applicant is trying to change the lives of negative individuals, because everyone makes mistakes, but what is important is the lesson we learn from those mistakes and how we recover. 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. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Use Disorder, Major Depression Disorder with psychotic features, and PTSD. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 30 October 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, post-service accomplishments, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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: 22 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On diverse occasions between on or about 4 January 2011, to on or about 20 September 2012, failed to report to his appointed place of duty; on or about 22 October 2011, he was drunk and disorderly; and on or about 8 June 2012, he was drunk and disorderly. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 25 October 2012, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 April 2010 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91D10, Power-Generation Equipment Repairer / 5 years, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 November 2007 - 27 April 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, HSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 9 February 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions (between 13 and 30 September 2010 and 4 and 21 January 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $445 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. Military Police Report, dated 22 October 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Driving a Vehicle when Mentally Impaired by Alcohol Consumption (Off Post); Assault- Consummated by a Battery (Off Post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 8 December 2011, for operating a motor vehicle on a public road while drunk. It was reported that on 22 October 2011, in Bamberg, Germany, while attempting to park his vehicle he struck a parked car. He then left the area and was stopped by the Polizei. The applicant was transported to the Bamberg Klinikum where he was administered a blood alcohol test which resulted in a reading of 0.086 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Military Police Report, dated 10 June 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Assault- Consummated by a Battery (Off Post). FG Article 15, dated 18 January 2012, for drunk and disorderly conduct (22 October 2011). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 23 July 2012, for drunk and disorderly conduct (8 June 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and, extra duty for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 August 2012, 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. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is currently working towards starting his own gym; earned an Associate's Degree, a massage therapy license, personal training and group fitness certifications; and, is trying to give back to his community. 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. 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 assaulted and nothing was done to his assailants, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, 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. Further, 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 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 30 October 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, post-service accomplishments, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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 AR20180000609 1