1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 May 2018 b. Date Received: 14 May 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during his deployment he was also dealing with a lot of issues at home; his wife had been committing adultery and spending every penny in our bank account. His wife at the time, met another man and fled the state of North Carolina with his children. He developed a serious dependency on the medication and became addicted to opiates. He was unaware that the separation board was actually going to happen. Just weeks before his contract was scheduled to end, the unit rushed him into a separation board because they were determined to push him out of the military for civilian criminal charges that he had not even been convicted. He was released from the military on the exact day his contract ended thereby completing his contract thru his ETS date. He did not understand since he faithfully completed both of his contracts why he was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He served back to back deployments and developed a serious case of PTSD. He handled his issues towards the end of his service through self-medication. He was punished twice for the same incident, demoted and separated from service. He desires to gain the benefits he worked so many years for. The ADRB upgraded a veteran friend of his who was in a worse situation than himself. 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 TBI, Partner Relational Problem. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Opioid Use, unspecified; Other stimulant dependence, uncomplicated. The applicant is 90% service connected, 70% for PTSD and 50% for migraine headaches. Due to the basis of separation not being in file, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In summary, the separation was proper and equitable. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 November 2020, and by a 4-1 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 11 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: No / Partial (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 5 May 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 22 May 2014, the administrative separation board convened. The Board recommended that the applicant be separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 29 May 2014, the separation approving authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant be discharged from the US Army with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 December 2008 / 5 years / 6 months extension, 17 November 2011 / extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the Government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / 1-year college / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13B2P, Cannon Crewmember / 8 years, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 May 2006 to 11 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / Iraq x2, 24 September 2008 to 3 August 2009 and 13 November 2010 to 20 October 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-3CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, CAB, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2009 to 23 December 2010, Among The Best 23 December 2011 to 22 December 2013, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Civilian Confinement for 1 day, 5 February 2014 to 5 February 2014 j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement (two pages); certificate of completion, relapse prevention and after care group; and a DD Form 214. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the 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 digital signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 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, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JKQ (i.e., misconduct, serious offense) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. The applicant seeks relief contending, during his deployment he was also dealing with a lot of issues at home; his wife had been committing adultery and spending every penny in our bank account; and his wife at the time, met another man and fled the state of North Carolina with his children. The available record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services and other resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant further contends, he developed a serious dependency on the medication and became addicted to opiates. AR 600-85, paragraph 7-3, entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant also contends, he was unaware that the separation board was actually going to happen. The available record shows on 5 May 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. The applicant additionally contends, just weeks before his contract was scheduled to end, the unit rushed him into a separation board because they were determined to push him out of the military for civilian criminal charges that he had not even been convicted; and he did not understand since he faithfully completed both of his contracts why he was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The available 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was released from the military on the exact day his contract ended thereby completing his contract thru his ETS date. The available record of evidence shows that on 29 May 2014, the separation approving authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant be discharged from the US Army. Moreover, the applicant contends, he served back to back deployments and developed a serious case of PTSD. The available service record contains no evidence of PTSD 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 further contends, he handled his issues towards the end of his service through self-medication. 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. The applicant desires to gain the benefits he worked so many years for. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, The ADRB upgraded a veteran friend of his who was in a worse situation than himself. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the 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 18 November 2020, and by a 4-1 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 / 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 AR20180008037 5