1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 May 2018 b. Date Received: 29 May 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the record was impeccable prior to this single incident of misconduct. The applicant's subsequent diagnosis of PTSD should be considered as a mitigating factor. The command team sought to send a message of authority to the Soldiers in the unit and did so at the expense of the applicant. The applicant deployed to Afghanistan and received numerous awards and accolades. The applicant returned from deployment to Afghanistan and began noticing the traditional signs and symptoms of PTSD (insomnia, recurring nightmares, anxiety and depression). The applicant kept the suffering to oneself and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The applicant has not received so much as a parking ticket since the DUI four years ago. The command committed a procedural error in processing the separation. The misconduct of a single DUI was not adequate for discharge under Chapter 14-12(c). The applicant was denied valuable, well-earned, veteran's benefits that would irrefutably help ensure future success as the applicant reintegrates into civilian society. The command team additionally failed to exercise sound discretion when they ignored mandatory provisions outlined in the first chapter of AR 635-200. 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 Phase of Life Problem, Alcohol Dependence, and Anxiety Disorder. The applicant is 30% service-connected for Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant has no received a diagnosis for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2019, and by a 3-2 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBH), post-service accomplishments, and a prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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 change them. (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-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he did physically control a vehicle, a passenger car, while drunk (26 July 2014); and he did physically control a vehicle, a passenger car, in a reckless manner by nearly striking PV2 B.J.V. (26 July 2014) (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) The unit commander also recommended the applicant be retained and rehabilitatively transferred to another unit as directed by the G-1 /MPD. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 February 2014, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 1 December 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. The administrative separation board convened. The available record does not indicate that the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 February 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 October 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25U2P, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 7 years, 2 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 January 2008 to 8 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Afghanistan, 5 November 2011 to 5 November 2012 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, MOVSM, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, Fully Capable 3 June 2014 to 25 November 2014, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 October 2014, for driving while impaired. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA disability compensation letter, dated 28 March 2018, relates that the applicant was service connected for other specified trauma related with stress disorder (Claimed as PTSD / Depression / Anxiety) and was granted an evaluation of 30 percent disabling. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); letter, Syracuse University, College of Law; attorney's brief / petition (17 pages); Exhibit A, DD Form 214 and Chapter 14 separation file (21 pages); Exhibit B, Kurta Guidance, Office of the Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Clarifying Guidance lo Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment (five pages); Exhibit C, College Transcripts, Syracuse University; Exhibit D, VA Award letter, (two pages); and Exhibit E, applicant's statement (three pages). Although the applicant's counsel listed six character / support statements in the application; however, these statements were not submitted with the application, they were listed as related documents to the applicant's GOMOR. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states enrolled in college at Syracuse University to pursue higher education. He graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Information Management and Technology with a 3.29 Grade Point Average. He was active with the Student Veterans Organization and was featured as the "Student Veteran of the Month" in March 2017. He also assisted the Student Veterans Organization with its initial webpage designs. He currently works at "In Motion Hosting" providing web hosting technical support. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, his record was impeccable prior to this single incident of misconduct. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, he returned from deployment to Afghanistan and began noticing the traditional signs and symptoms of PTSD (insomnia, recurring nightmares, anxiety and depression); and that his subsequent diagnosis of PTSD be considered as a mitigating factor. The applicant submitted a VA disability compensation letter, that shows the applicant was service connected for other specified trauma related with stress disorder (Claimed as PTSD / Depression / Anxiety and was granted an evaluation of 30 percent disabling. The applicant also contends, his command team sought to send a message of authority to the Soldiers in the unit and did so at the expense of the applicant. 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 additionally contends, he deployed to Afghanistan and received numerous awards and accolades. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident (s) that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. Moreover, the applicant contends, he kept his suffering to himself and began to self-medicate with alcohol. He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he has not received so much as a parking ticket since his DUI four years ago. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant further contends, his command committed a procedural error in processing his separation; and the command team additionally failed to exercise sound discretion when they ignored mandatory provisions outlined in the first chapter of AR 635-200. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant also contends, his misconduct of a single DUI was not adequate for discharge under Chapter 14-12(c). Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated if a punitive discharge is authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was denied valuable, well-earned, veteran's benefits that would irrefutably help ensure his future success as he reintegrates into civilian society. 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 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 27 March 2019, and by a 3-2 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBH), post-service accomplishments, and a prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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 change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes 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 AR20180007573 1