1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 May 2018 b. Date Received: 21 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 pertinent part and in effect, the applicant's mental health and adolescence prevented the applicant from being everything. The applicant needed screening for hyperactive behavior. If the applicant had known the consequences of these actions, the applicant would have changed and taken advantage of the available resources. 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 ADHD, Occupational Problem, and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant does not have any VA records for review. In summary, the applicant did 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 14 August 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 March 2013, the applicant was cited by a Police Department for driving under the influence and consuming alcohol while under the age of 21. The applicant's blood alcohol content registered at 0.12g/210L. On 3 July 2013, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for his actions and on 23 August 2013, and the GOMOR was filed in his AMHRR. On 25 July 2013, the applicant was stopped by a Police Department for having an expired registration. The police officer detected an odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle. The applicant was transported to a County Detention Center and administered an intoxilizer breath alcohol test where his blood alcohol content registered at .05g/210L. On 26 August 2013, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for consuming alcohol while under the age of 21. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 29 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 September 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 August 2010 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y1P, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Qatar (6 September 2011 to 9 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: JSAM; AAM; NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand with its associated documents, dated 3 July 2013, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and consuming alcohol while under the age of 21, on 24 March 2013. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand with its associated documents, dated 23 August 2013, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and consuming alcohol while under the age of 21, on 25 July 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 18 May 2018, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and document 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends he needed screening for his behavioral health issues. However, the service record contains no evidence of any medical condition or behavioral health diagnosis and the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to support any behavioral health diagnoses. However, based on medical records available to the Board, if any, that reflects behavioral health symptoms did existed, and upon the Board determining that the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. If there is no medical record with behavioral health diagnoses available to the Board and if the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., an official medical diagnoses of behavioral health or the medical condition that he related to by a competent medical authority), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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 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 14 August 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 AR20180007901 1