1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 February 2018 b. Date Received: 15 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and a Separation Code (SPD) change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, discharge believed to be inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident, with more than 48 months of service, a previous honorable discharge, and, having no previous adverse actions. The applicant states was not counseled or encouraged to remain in service, therefore began communication with Marine Corp recruiters in the hopes of continuing career in the military. This request is being made on the basis of inequity and bias, as shown through documents related to the separation process provided with application. The applicant believes it is clear that efforts were made to justify a negative discharge despite no history of negative counseling or behaviors and the alcohol related nature of the incident leading to UCMJ actions. The applicant believes the discharge process and codes used for characterization of service, narrative reason for separation and separation code were unfair and inequitable for the following reasons: The Narrative Reason for Separation of Misconduct appears especially excessive considering the separation packet describes only one incident in over four years of military service with no previous incidents. The Separation Code of JKF, indicates that he went AWOL or Deserted, which is not valid or correct and seems to only serve the purpose of punishing further; A more accurate Separation Code probably should have been "JPC," Drug abuse rehabilitative failure, although the applicant was not given an opportunity to be successful in treatment; The original chapter packet submitted used the positive urinalysis as the basis for requesting separation, but was changed once informed that the inclusion of such results in the chapter packet would be protected under the limited use policy resulting in an honorable discharge; The second chapter packet was also rejected by legal counsel because command appeared to be attempting to "stack the deck" with negative accounts in order to validate a less than honorable discharge; It was identified in a memorandum from legal counsel that the company commander appeared to be making efforts to "sidestep the limited use policy" and that the selection for a basis of discharge appeared to be driven by a bias on the part of the commander or a "higher authority"; There was no indication in any of the Article 15 or chapter paperwork that the incident in NYC was an alcohol related incident, let alone that it occurred during an alcohol induced black out; The applicant was told by at least one peer that the peer was instructed by one of the section NCO's that it would be "wise" to stay away from the applicant, leaving isolated and with little to no support in section or platoon; The applicant's platoon leadership made no efforts to encourage, reassure or make the applicant a part of the team. From the day the applicant spoke with the LRS-D command, was viewed as a "rebel rouser" of sorts and scrutinized relentlessly. This factor fueled the applicant's efforts to be reassigned; The improper room assignment with CSM K. in NYC came without explanation and during an already stressful relationship with leadership; and, The applicant was never questioned about reason for inviting the PFC back to the room and this factor was left completely out of all documentation. The applicant takes no pride in his behavior during this period and recognizes that there are things along the way the applicant could have done differently that may have changed the outcome. The applicant attempted to manage emotions by drinking alcohol, rather than seeking professional support before events escalated in the manner that they did. Regrettably, the applicant was discharged from the military without completing many goals or achieving full potential. The applicant states, is fortunate that the applicant grew from this experience and it completely changed the trajectory of life. Since discharge, the applicant has been married for seven years and has three children. The applicant's personal and professional accomplishments include: earning a Bachelor of Science in Human Services and a Master of Science in Human Services with a concentration in Mental Health Counseling. The applicant became certified by the Florida Certification Board as a Certified Addictions Professional (CAP) and became a National Certified Gambling Counselor (NCGC-11). The applicant has obtained several licenses and operates a private practice providing mental health counseling. The applicant also took last drink of alcohol or any other mind-altering substance in 2004. The applicant further details accomplishments and contentions in a self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 26, contains erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. Block 26, separation code changed to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (1) / JKF / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2003 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's service record is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation. The information below was derived from documents provided by the applicant. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was sharing a room with CSM K. during the WTC run in NYC. On the night before the run, the applicant brought a female into the room, and got into bed with her. After being told by the CSM to get the female out of the room, he followed the order and went to sleep. A few hours later, CSM K. woke up to the sound of running water, to find that it was actually the applicant urinating on the floor. Even though he was ordered to stop more than once, the applicant continued to urinate on the floor. (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: 16 November 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 8 years, 8 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 May 1994 - 19 May1998 / HD USARCG, 20 May 1998 - 15 November 2001 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, HSM, ASR, OSR, ALB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report, dated 22 January 2003, reflects the applicant was be administrative separated from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-20, Chapter 14-12c. The specific reasons were previous stated in previous paragraph 3c. The report reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, dated 2 December 2002, for disobeying an NCO, disrespecting an NCO, and urinating on a carpet. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E3; forfeiture of $734 pay for two months (suspended for 6 months); and, extra duty for 45 days. Administrative Separation memo from Senior Defense Counsel, dated 23 January 2003, reflects: "In reviewing the attached separation packet, I notice that, although the basis for separation noted in your memorandum has changed, the positive urinalysis tests are still included. Once again, the inclusion of any information in a chapter separation that is protected by the limited use policy prohibits any discharge less favorable than honorable. I have advised [the applicant] that he should not make a second election of rights because the separation packet is still defective. At this point, merely extracting the documents relating to his positive urinalysis will just highlight the appearance of trying to sidestep the limited use policy. I would urge you to base the chapter on your actual reasons for recommending separation of [the applicant]. lf he had never tested positive for use of illegal drugs, would you be recommending his separation from the Army? If the answer to that question is no, than I would ask you to respect the purpose and function of the limited use policy, base the chapter on use of illegal drugs, and recommend that he receive an honorable discharge. Your selection of a basis for his discharge should not be driven by the characterization of service that you, or a higher authority, think is appropriate. It should be driven by the same reason for wanting to terminate the enlistment of [the applicant]." i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: two DD forms 214; DD Form 293; a self-authored statement; three letters of support; administrative separation documents; college transcripts; Licensed Mental Health Counselor card; Orders 036-1010; DD Form 2648. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has been married for seven years and has three children. He earned a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree and has is a Certified Addictions Professional (CAP) and a National Certified Gambling Counselor. The applicant operates a private practice providing mental health counseling and has abstained from alcohol or any other mind-altering substance since 2004. The applicant is a Qualified Supervisor approved to supervise state Registered Mental Health Counseling Interns and has obtained employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs, HUD-VASH Program, assisting homeless Veterans with a history of mental health and/ or substance abuse issues find sustainable employment. 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(1) allows for an absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion to be separated for commission of a serious offense. 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 "JKF" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c(1), misconduct (desertion). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKF" 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, a narrative reason change and a Separation Code (SPD) change. 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 specific 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 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(1), by reason of Misconduct (Desertion), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge and the SPD code should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(1), AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKF." 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 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. The applicant's contentions about basis of discharge appeared to be driven by a bias on the part of the commander or a "higher authority" and that he was never went AWOL or deserted, as reflected by the separation code, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. 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. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends a more appropriate reason for discharge would be rehabilitation failure. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends he was anxious, depressed and hopeless which led to continued heavy drinking and a single relapse with marijuana. However, the service record contains no evidence of depression or anxiety diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 August 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 26, contains erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 26, separation code changed to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change 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 AR20180003699 1