1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 March 2018 b. Date Received: 22 May 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during his service with the IANG and the U.S. Army Reserve, he participated in explosives training, weapons training, Bradley tank gunnery training, and heavy physical training from which he received bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, said cervical and thoracic spinal injuries, nerve encroachment and damage, (numbness pain and tingling in arms and legs), migraines, and post-traumatic stress, which still remains unresolved and untreated. The applicant states, he was given a discharge hearing on 15 November 2012, for unsatisfactory participation. On 18 November 2012, the applicant mailed a signed and dated letter within the allotted time to appeal, addressing section 9 of the discharge document, to Mr. J.H. the unit administrator, disputing the discharge proceedings, stating that he had not received a full medical evaluation to determine his status prior to the decision for discharge. The letter was unanswered and likely discarded. The applicant filed for VA disability compensation starting 7January 2013, but his compensation claim was denied twice. The applicant met with F.F., Veterans Service Officer, to update his current address for another appeal. The applicant was awarded treatment solely for the cervical injury in August 2016. The applicant then requested any and all documents from his Veterans Service Officer via emails, resulting in further negligence, divergence, and failing moral efficacy of systems specifically in place to prevent this from happening. Finally, while sustaining these traumatic events, the applicant's request for any assistance and records so that he may proceed, were muffled off to some foreign toilet in the claim that his mailing address was and still is a mystery. Timely enough, a dear friend asked that the applicant be his guest in September 2016, in attending his Mindfulness For Recovery Class at the Boise VA campus, from which the applicant was billed immediately to his correct address for cross servicing. Due to those complications, ethical violations, deliberate indifference, negligence and mishandling of his status and medical care, the applicant became despondent, addicted to high levels of prescribed opiate medications, overstressed mentally physically and emotionally and ultimately became incapable of functioning. The applicant further details his contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. 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 are void of behavioral health conditions for consideration. While liberal consideration was applied, there is no medical mitigation. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 December 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's prior period of honorable service, OBHI diagnosis and post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Misconduct / AR 135-178 / Chapter 12-1c / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant had been found guilty in the Idaho State Court System for I54-1732(3)(C) Pharmacy- Unlawful Possession or Use of Prescription Drug, I37-2734A(l) Drug Paraphernalia Use or Possess With Intent to Use, 118-8004 {F} Driving Under the Influence, and 120-222 Probation Violation. These convictions resulted in confinement in a state prison. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 October 2012, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 10 October 2012, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service higher than the least favorable characterization of service authorized in his separation action. (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 24 October 2009 / Military Service Obligation (30 January 2016) b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 25 / GED / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / 21B10, Combat Engineer / 3 years, 21 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: ARNG, 31 January 2008 - 23 October 2009 / GD IADT, 20 March 2008 - 3 July 2008 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Idaho Repository Case History, reflects the applicant was found guilty in the Idaho State Court System for 154-1732(3){() Pharmacy- Unlawful Possession or Use of Prescription Drug, 137-2734A(1) Drug Paraphernalia - Use or Possess With Intent to Use, 118-8004 {F} Driving Under the Influence, and 120-222 Probation Violation. These convictions resulted in confinement in a state prison. i. Lost Time: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Congressional Inquiry; self- authored letter; Timeline; two third-party letters; VA Administrative Decision letter; case separation documents; St. Luke's medical documents; Treasure Valley Hospital medical documents; DA Form 3349; DD Form 689. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is working toward certification as a barber and publishes thoughtful kind contributions in a local magazine. The applicant states, he is strengthening his connections and relationships with his family, friends, and community. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. Chapter 12 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits 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 he did not receive a full medical evaluation prior to the separation authority's decision. 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 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak of the applicant's struggles with his injuries he suffered while on active duty. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 9 December 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's prior period of honorable service, OBHI diagnosis and post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Authority 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 AR20180007677 5