1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 March 2017 b. Date Received: 22 February 2018 c. Counsel: 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, the lack of communication caused a career to be ruined. The applicant believes there is more the applicant could have in benefits for the amount of time served, rather than lose everything for patterns of misconduct. The applicant states, the discharge is inequitable because when the applicant failed to report, the applicant was not given any help or sleep studies and was denied behavioral health after having thoughts of harming oneself. The applicant also believes the discharge was inequitable because of being addicted to cigarettes and the noncommissioned officers would let the applicant smoke from time to time, depending on their mood. This became a problem for the applicant after being told about failing to obey a lawful order to not smoke. The applicant was not taking any classes to help with addiction, because the noncommissioned officers would allow it. The applicant states, on one occasion, the applicant was told by a Specialist in the platoon that the applicant had 30 minutes to get lunch. The applicant was then told by a noncommissioned officer to take one of their Soldiers to lunch, but did not tell the applicant how long. The Soldier took longer than was expected and the NCO yelled at the applicant for being late and not getting a to-go plate. The applicant states, the NCO did not want to listen to the applicant when the applicant tried to explain that the applicant did not even get lunch, while helping another Soldier get to the Dining Facility. Another NCO would tell the applicant that the applicant could attend an appointment, but when the applicant would miss formation, the applicant would get in trouble. Any time the applicant reported late, the NCOs would counsel and tell the applicant it would not matter, even though the applicant knew there was something wrong for being late for sleeping in. The applicant sought help, but the NCOs did not seem to care until the command got involved. The applicant believes there was a lack of effort on the part of leadership to help through the separation process and had to do everything. During the separation process, the applicant was told by numerous NCOs to lie about PTSD, due to mistreatment, to speed up the discharge process. The applicant screened positive for PTSD and later was told that the applicant was an easy target for NCOs, who would follow the applicant to cause trouble. The applicant served honorably and knew the job to the fullest and never failed a test. The applicant states upon initially getting in trouble, the applicant had been in the Army for a year, but then was chaptered. The whole family had served in the military and the applicant does not believe it was all on the applicant, considering the applicant served honorably as did the family. The applicant paid the whole GI Bill, which the applicant deserves. The applicant was put on the streets straight out of the Army and it is hard to get a job and wants to go to school. 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 and Adjustment Insomnia. Post-service, the applicant has a 60% service-connected rating for an Unspecified Anxiety Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Abuse. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 May 2019, and by a 5-0 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's service record is void of the commander's notification intent to separate, however the record includes a Commander's Report, dated 1 March 2017, which reflects the commander recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 March 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 September 2015 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 1 year, 6 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - 2ND Corrected Final/Collateral, dated 17 November 2016, reflects that on 15 August 2016 at 2320, HPD Officer conducted a traffic stop on H1 Freeway West for Reckless Driving and Excessive Speeding. The officer was able to get approximately 500 feet away from the Ford Mustang and the radar was able to confirm the high speed of 109 MPH. The officer made contact with the driver, identified as the applicant and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath as he spoke. The applicant was asked to perform a series of Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), which he refused. The officer in conjunction with refusing the SFST and excessive speed at which he was driving, determined there is credible information to title the applicant with the HRS offenses of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, Excessive Speeding and Reckless Driving. The applicant was transported to the Pearl City Police Station where he refused to submit a breath sample. The applicant was further processed and released on a $1500.00 bail. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 5 December 2016, for driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving and excessive speeding on 15 August 2016, on Interstate H-1 near Waipahu, Hawaii. He was stopped by police for driving in excess of 100 miles per hour. Upon making contact with him, the officer detected an odor of alcohol emitting from his breath. He was asked to perform a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, which he refused. He was subsequently transported to the police station where he refused to submit a breath sample. Commander's Report, dated 1 March 2017, reflects the specific reasons for the applicant's separation were: On or about 15 August 2016, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; On diverse occasions, between on or about 27 June 2016 and on or about 16 September 2016, the applicant failed to report; On or about 8 September 2016 and on or about 9 September 2016, the applicant failed to follow a lawful order; and, On or about 22 April 2016 and on or about 9 May 2016, the applicant violated a lawful general regulation. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a partial Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 October 2016, reflects the applicant screened positive for PTSD and was referred for a comprehensive mild Traumatic Brain Injury evaluation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 3822; Three DA Forms 4856; DD Form 214; DD Form 293. 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 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. The applicant's record is void of the complete 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, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), 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's contentions about him being targeting by his noncommissioned officers, 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 he was suffering from PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he was denied the opportunity to be seen by behavioral health, when he sought help. However, 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 applicant contends that he had good service. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 3 May 2019, and by a 5-0 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: 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 AR20180004787 1