1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 May 2018 b. Date Received: 4 June 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his request is based on the amount of service he gave his country and everything that he sacrificed. While he completed 49 months of serving in combat zones, his overall service was for over 13 years. He has exhibited symptoms of PTSD resulting from combat-related events from 2005. He completed ASAP in 2006, and attended treatment in 2016. He was discharged on 8 September 2017. When he was found unfit for duty and placed in the medical board process, he was removed due to his current separation. He has been attending college in hopes of becoming a counselor to help with maintaining unit readiness, and help commanders identify the warning signs before it becomes too late. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) the applicant may have had a partially mitigating behavioral health condition at the time that led to the applicant's discharge. The SM's Depression, Anxiety and PTSD are mitigating for his positive UA and FTR. However, they are not mitigating for misuse of a government vehicle. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF, but according to the applicant's documentary evidence, the board that convened and adjourned on 17 July 2017, recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92A30, Automated Logistical Specialist / 13 years, 8 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (7 January 2004 to 20 January 2006) / HD RA (21 January 2006 to 21 February 2010) / HD RA (22 February 2010 to 1 October 2011) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (30 April 2005 to 26 April 2006), 23 April 2008 to 22 July 2009), Afghanistan (1 November 2010 to 1 November 2011), (8 April 2013 to 6 February 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: DMSM; ARCOM-2; JSAM; AAM; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM- CS-2; ICM-CS-2; GWOTSM; NCOPDR-2; ASR; OSR-3; NATO MDL; CAB; MUC g. Performance Ratings: Eight NCOERS, as follows (Note, FC for "Fully Capable," AB for "Among the Best"): 1 September 2010 thru 31 August 2011, FC 1 September 2011 thru 10 July 2012, FC 11 July 2012 thru 7 April 2013, AB 8 April 2013 thru 7 April 2014, AB 8 April 2014 thru 16 October 2014, AB 17 October 2014 thru 16 October 2015, AB 17 October 2015 thru 15 October 2016, Did Not Meet Standard 11 October 2016 thru 11 September 2017, Met Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15 and its allied documents, dated 28 September 2016, for wrongfully using marijuana between 11 June 2016 and 11 July 2016, failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 1 April 2016, being derelict in the performance of his duties for two separate instances between 4 February 2016 and 13 March 2016, and between 17 February 2016 and 18 February 2016, respectively. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 and forfeiture of $1,583 pay per month for two months. Discharge Orders i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant's documentary evidence: Physical Profile, dated 26 February 2016, indicates the applicant's medical condition was "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 13 June 2017, a diagnosis of PTSD, and referral to a Physical Evaluation Board. Physical Profile Record, dated 14 June 2017, states "Soldier was issued a permanent profile of S3 for PTSD in March 2017." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 31 May 2018; Permanent Orders, dated 20 April 2007; character reference statement, dated 8 October 2013; promotion Orders, dated 1 November 2013; Physical Profile; ERB; Physical Profile Record, dated 14 June 2017; Dashboard data; Notification to Appear before an Administrative Separation Board, dated 27 June 2017; separation authority's decision memorandum, dated 16 August 2017; administrative separation board proceedings, dated 17 July 2017, with illegible findings and recommendations; applicant's mother supporting statement; DD Form 214; and Kurta memorandum, dated 25 August 2017, with its attachments; 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he has been attending college in hopes of becoming a counselor to help with maintaining unit readiness, and help commanders identify the warning signs before it becomes too late. 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(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 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 submitted evidence 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 seeks relief contending, he was being processed through the MEB process while on active duty, but he was removed due to his current discharge process. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends, although he gave his country and everything that he sacrificed during his 49 months of serving in combat zones, and his overall service was for 13 years, and that he exhibited symptoms of PTSD resulting from combat-related events from 2005, and subsequently he completed ASAP in 2006 and attended treatment in 2016, he was discharged. Because the Board does not have access to the applicant's complete separation file, it cannot ascertain with any degree of certainty the complete basis for the applicant's separation. However, the applicant has submitted portions of the separation packet, but the findings in the separation board proceedings were not completely legible. Assuming those were the only acts of misconduct, and considering the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved suffering from the symptoms of PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. However, the separation authority considered the medical evidence, and determined that was not the case. The Board is not bound by the separation authority's finding in that regard, and can review that determination. If the Board determines 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. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of service-connected PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / RE-3 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 AR20180009604 1