1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2018 b. Date Received: 12 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 and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, while stationed in Cuba, had two alcohol-related incidents. The counseling statement indicated the applicant was being command-referred to the substance abuse treatment. When 30 days passed, the applicant attempted to obtain treatment, but the platoon sergeant informed the applicant that because of being command-referred, the applicant would not be able to enroll oneself. Per AR 600-85, commanders must refer Soldiers who receive such drug test results or legal citations within five duty days of receipt of the notification. Because of the refusal to send the applicant to treatment after acknowledging the issues, the applicant became discouraged and went back to drinking, which led to the second incident and subsequently discharge from the service. Since discharge, he applicant has received two DWIs and lost employment because of drinking. The applicant was also diagnosed with alcohol dependency by the Department of Veterans Affairs. If the applicant had received treatment at the first sign of a problem, life could have turned out substantially different. The applicant might have remained in the military and continued to serve honorably. The applicant is not in possession of the OMPF, therefore, is only able to furnish a VA record showing a diagnosis of alcohol dependent. The applicant understands the actions while in the military were unbecoming of an individual who wears the uniform with pride. The applicant takes pride of the service. The actions on behalf of the country were well-intentioned, which the applicant will never regret. The applicant does not hold the previous chain-of-command responsible for this behavior. Through counseling, the applicant found that drinking was directly connected to PTSD. The applicant took strides to overcome the disorder and takes steps to guard oneself against its effects. The applicant is attending college to obtain a degree in psychology to better understand these issues and to help others where the applicant can. 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 Alcohol Dependence. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Dependence and Personality Disorder NOS. In summary, although the applicant has a BH diagnosis, due to the basis of separation not being in file, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant's BH diagnosis is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 June 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: 30 January 2012 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: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 December 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 31E20, Internment / Resettlement Specialist, and 11B10, Infantryman / 6 years, 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (5 July 2005 to 20 January 2007) / HD RA 21 January 2007 to 2 December 2010) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Cuba / Iraq (19 August 2006 to 31 October 2007), Cuba (3 January 2011 to 28 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NCOER, 1 November 2010 thru 22 June 2011, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Problem List, dated 22 July 2016, indicates, in pertinent part, that the applicant was being treated for PTSD (9 November 2016) and unspecified personality disorder (17 August 2012). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 16 May 2018, and VA Problem List, last updated on 24 January 2018. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he is attending college to obtain a degree in psychology. 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 the characterization of his discharge from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully examining the applicant's available military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service and the merit of his issues. The applicant's record is void of the documentary evidence 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 digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. 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., the complete 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. 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 the discharge was unjust because he was not referred into ASAP within five days after his first DUI. However, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. There is also a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant contends his drinking issue was directly connected to his PTSD. His contentions 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. 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. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments and quality of his service, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is JKA. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 28 June 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 AR20180011091 1