1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2017 b. Date Received: 7 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that after successfully completing a command-referred ASAP, the applicant was notified by the TDS attorney that the suspension for a general discharged was not approved. The applicant contends that the board members for the separation board opted that the applicant be placed on suspension for a year pending the action by then President General D. G. G. 21st TCS. The applicant attended all of ASAP counseling's and group meetings. There were times the applicant had to drive to meetings because the command was busy and didn't have the available personnel to always escort. When the applicant was notified by the attorney CPT M., that the recommendations by the board members Suspension of General Discharge under Honorable was not approved, the applicant was given no notice as to why the applicant was being discharged. The First Sergeant called separations located in SHAPE Belgium to ask when the earliest the applicant could get separation orders. The command failed to send rebuttals for the applicant's GOMOR and believes there wasn't any support. The applicant wanted to be able to retire honorably. 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 Grief Reaction and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant is 70% service-connected for various medical concerns through the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. In summary, the applicant had 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 11 March 2019, 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), and a prior period of honorable service. 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), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: 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: 15 January 2014 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25B30, IT Specialist / 17 years, 1 month, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 August 2000 to 21 July 2005 / HD RA, 22 July 2005 to 28 February 2008 / HD RA, 29 February 2008 to 25 November 2012 / HD RA, 26 November 2012 to 14 January 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Brunssum, Madrid, SWA / Kuwait (15 October 2002 to 5 July 2003) Afghanistan (12 October 2013 to 9 June 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, JSAM, AAM-3, AGCM-5, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5, NATOMDL, ACM-CS g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2014, Fully Capable 1 September 2014 to 8 December 2015, Fully Capable 9 December 2015 to 16 January 2017, Did Not Meet Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer memorandum of reprimand submitted by the applicant dated 20 October 2016, shows the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 29 August 2016, in Brunssum, Netherlands. At 0150 hours, he was stopped by Dutch Police. During the stop the officers detected an odor of alcohol and administered a portable breath alcohol test, with the result of 0.115 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath (0.115g/210L). Under host nation laws, the legal limit for operating a vehicle on Dutch roadways was 0.05g/210L. Memorandum, dated 1 February 2017, reference Summary of Substance Use Disorder Clinical Car (SUDCC) Treatment for the SUDCC Therapist. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; patient progress report (PPR); administrative reprimand, dated 20 October 2016, driving under the influence of alcohol on 29 August 2016, in Brunssum, Netherlands; and several copies of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. 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 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 not 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 general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ," with a RE code of 3. Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28, reentry code, entered in block 27, and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. It should be noted; that the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The DD Form 214 under review confirms the applicant was discharge under the provisions of AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that after successfully completing his command- referred ASAP, he was notified by his TDS attorney that his suspension for a general discharged was not approved. He contends that the board members for his separation board opted that he be placed on suspension for a year pending the action by then President General D. G. G. 21st TCS. He contends he attended all of his ASAP counseling's, group meetings. There were times he had to drive himself to meetings; his command was busy and didn't have the available personnel to escort him always. When he was notified by his attorney CPT M. that the recommendations by his board members Suspension of General Discharge under Honorable was not approved; he was given no notice as to why he was being discharged. His First Sergeant called separations located in SHAPE Belgium to ask when the earliest he could get his separation orders was. He contends his command failed to send rebuttals to his GOMOR, he believes he didn't receive any support. He wanted to be able to retire honorably. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. 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. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 March 2019, 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), and a prior period of honorable service. 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), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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 / RE-3 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 AR20180001689 1