1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 April 2018 b. Date Received: 3 May 2018 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, that the discharge was neither an equal punishment to others with similar behavior or the correct procedure for the unit to take. The applicant was told that the MDRB bases it decision on equity and propriety. The applicant believes the discharge was not just according to either one of these qualification. The discharge says that the applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct but if you look at all of the incidents it was always alcohol related. Things the applicant was punished for were showing up late, intoxication, or getting into other trouble while intoxicated. Other members of his unit at the time would have the same occurrences and have a wide variety of different reaction. Some were covered for because there direct superior was drinking with them, others got beaten with broom sticks with no documentation of the incident and other were sent to a different unit out the SOCOM sector. Therefore the applicant believes being discharge was not anywhere near equal punishment of those with similar infractions. Secondly and more importantly, the commanding officers did not follow their own procedures and regulations in the discharge. Since everything in the pattern of misconduct pointed to alcohol abuse, the applicant should have been sent to the Army Substance Abuse Program for treatment of alcoholism that developed while in the Army. While in the Army, the applicant was elite in every aspect while on duty. The applicant was the honor graduate for AIT, following that, the applicant completed Airborne School and the Ranger Indoctrination Program, had a perfect score on the PT Test and qualified as an expert marksman, and in training before going to Afghanistan, received an Army Achievement Medal for performance. The applicant believes if the applicant had been properly directed to treatment, the applicant would most likely been able to break from this pattern. The applicant says this because since being discharged, the applicant has gone through treatment for alcohol abuse and completed an electrical apprenticeship, gotten married and has three kids, become a regular in leading in volunteering in a local church and in the community. The applicant has excelled at everything the applicant has tried without any patterns of misconduct since the applicant was correctly treated for the problem. 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 Alcohol Dependence and Occupational Problem. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with TBI. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant's BH diagnosis is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 February 2020, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: having arrived to work on 11 January 2010 with a Breath Alcohol Content of .150 and for having been counseled on many occasions for various misconduct. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 January 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 February 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 March 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 94F10, Computer/Detection Systems Repairer / 1 year, 11 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 August 2009 to 16 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 18 August 2009, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 2 April 2009, 18 May 2009, and 2 July 2009, and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer 3 April 2009. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 18 September 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 23 August 2009. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $824 per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 7 January 2010, showing the applicant was command referred for flushed face, nervousness, red or bleary eyes, hangovers on the job, unexcused absences, pattern of misconduct due to excessive use of alcohol, decreased quality of work, drinking during duty, and absenteeism. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 February 2010, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence occupational problem. It was noted that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant met the retention standards prescribed in AR 40-501, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and 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 14-12b 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. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 seeks relief contending that his discharge was neither an equal punishment to others with similar behavior or the correct procedure for his unit to take. The applicant contends that he was told that the MDRB bases it decision on equity and propriety. He believes his discharge was not just according to either one of these qualification. His discharge says that he was discharged for a pattern of misconduct but if you look at all of the incidents it was always alcohol related. Things he was punished for were showing up late, intoxication, or getting into other trouble while intoxicated. Other members of his unit at the time would have the same occurrences and have a wide variety of different reaction. Some were covered for because there direct superior was drinking with them, others got beaten with broom sticks with no documentation of the incident and other were sent to a different unit out the SOCOM sector. Therefore he believes being discharge was not anywhere near equal punishment of those with similar infractions. Secondly and more importantly his commanding officers did not follow their own procedures and regulations in his discharge. Since everything in his pattern of misconduct pointed to alcohol abuse he should have been sent to the Army Substance Abuse Program for treatment of alcoholism that he developed while in the Army. While in the Army he was elite in every aspect while on duty. He had the honor graduate for his AIT, following that he completed Airborne School and the Ranger Indoctrination Program, he had a perfect score on his PT Test and qualified as an expert marksman, and in training before going to Afghanistan he received an Army Achievement Medal for his performance. He believes had he been properly directed to treatment he would most likely been able to break from this pattern. He says this because since being discharged he has gone through treatment for alcohol abuse and completed his electrical apprenticeship, gotten married and has three kids, become a regular in leading in volunteering in his local church and in his community. He has excelled at everything he has tried without any patterns of misconduct since he was correctly treated for the problem. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was neither an equal punishment to others with similar behavior or the correct procedure for his unit to take. In fact, the applicant's two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant's in-service accomplishments along with his post-service were noted and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments; 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. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 28 February 2020, 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 AR20180007236 1