1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 July 2018 b. Date Received: 13 July 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 effect, the applicant's service justifies an upgrade and the accusation against the applicant occurred while in Korea, but still affects the applicant in multiple ways. The Army wanted to send the applicant back to Korea, where the applicant had just went through the worst experience of life. The applicant was suffering from PTSD and erectile dysfunction, which have become worse and the applicant went into a deep depression. The applicant currently receives treatment at the VA for these mental and physical issues. The applicant states due to a racist chain of command, the applicant was pushed to a breaking point, which resulted in an exit from Army sooner than the applicant wanted. 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 Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood/with mixed emotional features, Alcohol Abuse, and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Cannabis Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety Disorder, and Bipolar I Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 December 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, homelessness, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBHI). 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 July 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He drove while under the influence of alcohol on 14 November 2009. He also lied to noncommissioned officers between October 2009 and December 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 11 May 2010, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 May 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 June 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 February 2008 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25P1P 7D, Microwave System Operator-Maintainer / 8 years, 10 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 August 2001 - 27 August 2005 / HD RA, 28 August 2005 - 16 August 2006 / HD RA, 17 August 2006 - 26 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (10 August 2003 - 31 March 2004 / HD f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM- CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2008 - 31 July 2009 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 10 December 2009, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Civil Charge: Driving While License Suspended (Alcohol) (Off Post); Civil Charge: Reckless Driving (Alcohol) (Off Post); and, Civil Charge: Driving While Under The Influence of Alcohol (Refusal) (Off Post). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 3 January 2010, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 28 January 2010, was vacated because the applicant wrongfully appropriated a vehicle license plate, a value of less than $500, the property of an unknown person (4 May 2010). Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 January 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 12 January 2010, for making a false official statement on numerous occasions that his car was stolen (between 22 September and 22 November 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,146 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 30 January 2010, for driving under the influence of alcohol. On 14 November 2009, he was apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Pierce County, Washington, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to his apprehension, Trooper B., of the Washington State Patrol initiated a traffic stop because he appeared to be engaged in a speed competition with another vehicle and he displayed expired license plates. Upon contact by Trooper B., he smelled alcohol on his breath. He was administered a Standardized Field Sobriety Test which indicated impairment. He was then arrested and transported to the Tacoma District Washington State Patrol Office where he refused to submit to a lawfully requested breathalyzer test. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 2 June 2010; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 7 June 2010. CG Article 15, dated 18 June 2010, for being AWOL (between 2 and 7 June 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $448 pay; and, extra duty for one month. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 5 days (AWOL, 2 June 2010 - 6 June 2010) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 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 on Active Duty. The applicant contends that he was discriminated by members of his racist chain of command; however, 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record reflects that on 5 January 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 18 December 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, homelessness, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBHI). 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 AR20180010951 1