1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 January 2018 b. Date Received: 5 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was forced to resign his position based on a drug violation that came after his best friend in his unit killed himself. The applicant states, he even attempted suicide at the time of his death and he informed his command of this event, but no one thought to try and force him to get help. He believes he was clearly out of his mind, but his command, decided to appoint him as the Suicide Prevention Officer, which was a bad idea. Since that time, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and no longer uses drugs. He states, he has almost eight years of stellar service prior to that event and earned an ARCOM for his combat service. He has seen many Soldiers, while he worked the administration of his company and battalion test positive for drugs, but were retained in the unit and some did not even lose their rank. He begged to be retained, but the climate at the time was such to see him and the beloved Army part ways. He still and always will stand when his country and flag come calling and he will never be a civilian, but rather he will die a Soldier. 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) there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct, which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. The Applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD and mental status at the time of the misconduct mitigate the offense. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to recommend 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 recommend a change to them. The Board further recommended thru the Chief, National Guard Bureau, New York Military Department, to the Adjutant General, State of New York, under the provisions of 10 USC § 1553, in the case of Jeffrey M. Doring, that the applicant be considered for a change of discharge by the Adjutant General, State of New York, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22a, changing the characterization of discharge to Honorable. This action also entails a change to the applicant's discharge from the Reserve of the Army to reflect a characterization of service of honorable. Therefore, the ARBA Promulgation Team is directed to ensure the applicant's discharge from the Reserve of the Army reflects the aforementioned change. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Miscellaneous / General Reasons / To Be Determined / LND / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / Block 18 of the applicant's DD Form 214, reflects "SEPARATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF AR 135-178, CHP 12, PARA 1, (D) AND NGR (AR) 600-5 CHP 6, PARA 5, C (1), INAPPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CONDUCT." b. Date of Discharge: 17 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: The applicant at the time of his separation, was serving in the AGR program as a member of the NYARNG. Separation proceedings from the NYARNG began while the applicant was in an AGR status. The applicant was released from active duty based on the misconduct addressed in the initiation of separation proceedings from the NYARNG, however the proceedings were not completed until after his release from active duty. (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: Orders 365-0001, dated 31 December 2014, reflect the applicant was released from active duty; the release from active duty was "voluntary;" and, under authority of NGR (AR) 600-5 and AR 135-18, with a SPD of "LND." The orders are dated after the applicant's discharge from active duty. / NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2012 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / Some College / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 15T30, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer / 9 years, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 19 September 2005 - 22 July 2015 / GD (Concurrent Service) IADT, 14 November 2005 - 25 May 2006 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 6 June 2008 - 11 June 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 August 2008 - 16 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, AFRMM g. Performance Ratings: 25 March 2012 - 24 March 2013 / Among The Best 25 March 2013 - 24 March 2014 / Among The Best 25 March 2014 - 24 March 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 9 September 2014, for testing positive for the use of marijuana as a result of a unit urinalysis conducted on 9 September 2014. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 17 September 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 49 (marijuana), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 9 September 2014. Notification of Separation Proceedings under AR 135-178, Chapter 12 (memo), dated 30 September 2014, reflects the applicant's commander notified him that separation action had been initiated to separate him from The New York Army National Guard and The National Guard for abuse of illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. The reason for his proposed action was the applicant's positive result for marijuana during a Unit Urinalysis conducted on 9 September 2014. The commander recommended a characterization of service of Honorable. The intermediate commander and higher level commanders did not provide their recommendations until after the applicant was discharged from active duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 days (NIF, 8 December 2014 - 17 December 2014) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 1 July 2015, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 service- connected disability, however the letter does not indicate any disabilities. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; VA service-connected compensation letter; and, a self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has obtained employment. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-18, prescribes the policy and procedures for the administration of the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. It provides Army policy for the selection, utilization, and administration of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Soldiers ordered to active duty for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the Army National Guard (ARNG) and Army Reserve. It further prescribes program policy for installations, commands, and other activities to which AGR Soldiers are assigned or attached. This regulation incorporates the principles of the Army Total Force Policy. Paragraph 5-1 governs the separation from the AGR Program, as prescribed by this regulation, is an all-inclusive term which is applied to personnel actions resulting in REFRAD, discharge, retirement, dropped from the rolls, release from military control, death, or transfer/reassignment to the Individual Ready Reserve. All separations, voluntary or involuntary, from the AGR Program will be governed by the following regulations: ARNGUS Soldiers, released from active duty, while serving in the AGR Program under the provisions of 10 USC are subject to separation under the provisions of AR 600-8-24 (officers) or AR 635-200 (enlisted), and will be reported to the appropriate State Adjutant General on REFRAD from AGR status. ARNGUS Soldiers released from active duty, while serving in the Title 32 AGR Program under the provisions of 32 USC are subject to separation under provisions of AR 135-175 (officers) or AR 135-178 (enlisted), and as further provided under provisions of NGR 600-5. Paragraph 5-4, prescribes that AGR Soldiers may be released involuntarily from active duty at any time per AR 600-8-24 (officers), AR 635-200 (enlisted), and NGR 600-5. Unless otherwise specified in this regulation, the procedures and approval authorities cited in AR 600-8-24 and AR 635-200 apply. 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. 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 available, record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined the applicant's characterization was improper. The applicant's commander initiated separation proceedings to discharge the applicant from the NYARNG, while the applicant was on active duty in the AGR program. The separation proceedings did not come to completion until July 2015, which was seven months after his discharge from active duty. The authority for the applicant's discharge is improper as the applicant was on active duty in the AGR program; and, therefore was subject to the authority of AR 635-200. Further, based on the applicant's years of service, he was entitled to an Administrative Separation Board, prior to his discharge from active duty. Had the command followed the regulation from the start, there would be no ambiguity about what happened or about the date the applicant had been duly notified of the factors purportedly justifying a General (Under Honorable Conditions). Further, the regulation provides that the Soldier should be notified of the specific factors warranting a General (Under Honorable Conditions) using the notification procedure. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the applicant was not properly notified of the specific factors that motivated the command to discharge him with a General (Under Honorable Conditions). This improper notification violates AR 635-200, paragraph 1-5. The discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was not within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was not provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and behavioral health issues). Accordingly, the Board voted to recommend 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 recommend a change to them. The Board further recommended thru the Chief, National Guard Bureau, New York Military Department, to the Adjutant General, State of New York, under the provisions of 10 USC § 1553, in the case of Jeffrey M. Doring, that the applicant be considered for a change of discharge by the Adjutant General, State of New York, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22a, changing the characterization of discharge to Honorable. This action also entails a change to the applicant's discharge from the Reserve of the Army to reflect a characterization of service of honorable. Therefore, the ARBA Promulgation Team is directed to ensure the applicant's discharge from the Reserve of the Army reflects the aforementioned change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New NGB Form 22a: Pending NYTAG Decision 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 AR20180003674 1