1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 July 2018 b. Date Received: 18 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was acting under the influence of an Army prescribed psychoactive stimulant, which led to his discharge. The applicant states, other than this one mistake, he was a super Soldier. The applicant believes there is sufficient evidence to show his honorable service, even in spite of the few mistakes towards the end. The applicant believes these mistakes clearly show of a change in his character because of his PTSD, end of deployment depression, and psychoactive medications given to him by the Army. The applicant states, he was only 17 at the time of enlistment, and was unable to cope with combat stress due to his youth and inexperience, which heavily contributed to his mistakes and missteps. The applicant states, he has moved on well as a civilian, despite the dark cloud looming over him. The applicant desires to have a government job one day, surveying and preserving land and ecosystems to enable the propagation of human existence safely with the earth. An honorable discharge status may help the applicant realize that dream, and serve that branch of the government and the earth to the best of his abilities, not repeating the mistakes of his past. The applicant states, he has no criminal record and has obtained and completed treatments for the chemical imbalances and habits that led to his discharge. He has sought finer education on the very subject matter he served the Army. The applicant further details his contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. The evidence of record reflects the applicant had a prior records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 2019. Applicant requested RE code review prior to PA. 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 only pre-service diagnoses ADHD. The applicant provided a Patient Health Summary sheet which lists ADHD, Anxiety, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and PTSD; however the evaluation, treatment notes, and provider credentials are void. The applicant's pre-service diagnosis of ADHD does not mitigate the basis for separation, and without the basis for the PTSD, i.e. military or nonmilitary as well as symptoms meeting criteria, the diagnosis cannot be applied. In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 November 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis), post-service accomplishments, and prior period of honorable service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 September 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 4 August 2011, the applicant was charged with: Violating Article 89, UCMJ, for, on or 29 July 2011, behaved himself with disrespect toward CPT D., his superior commissioned officer, by saying to him "What the fuck you looking at" and "I am fucking done: with you," or words to that effect; Violating Article 91, UCMJ, for, on or about 29 July 2011, was disrespectful in language toward First Sergeant S., a superior non-commissioned officer, by saying to him "fuck you" or words to that effect; and, Violating Article 112a, UCMJ, did, or abo 16 May 2011 and on or about 14 June 2011, wrongfully used marijuana. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 8 August 2011 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 31 August 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2010 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 February 2009 - 28 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 March 2010 - 12 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-2, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Incomplete CG Article 15, dated 18 July 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 31 March 2011, 28 April 2011, 10 May 2011, 12 May 2011, 13 May 2011, and 30 June 2011. The document does not indicate any imposed punishment. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 20 July 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 102, during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 14 June 2011. Personnel Action, dated 1 September 2011, reference a change of duty status from confined by civilian authorities (CCA) to present for duty 1 September 2011. Counseling for testing positive for THC on a urinalysis test dated 14 June 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 34 days (CCA, 29 July 2011 to 1 September 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Patent Health Summary, dated 23 September 2019, reflects the applicant was treated for: ADHD; Anxiety problem; Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent episode, moderate with mixed features; PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; two Certificate of Achievement; three Diplomas; Article, Combat Soldier Loads; three DA Forms 638; two AAM certificate; Emergency Medical Technician certificate; Affiliation certificate; Certificate of Training; two ARCOM certificates; Certificate of Completion; Patient Health Summary. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has no criminal record and has obtained and completed treatments for the chemical imbalances and habits that led to his discharge. He has sought finer education on the very subject matter he served the Army. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends he was under the influence of Army prescribed psychoactive stimulant, and was suffering from PTSD, which effected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of a prescribed psychoactive stimulant and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. Moreover, 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 the events that caused his discharge from the Army were isolated incidents towards the end of his service. Although isolated incidents, the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 November 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis), post-service accomplishments, and prior period of honorable service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20180011118 6