1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 July 2018 b. Date Received: 9 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that after the second deployment to Iraq, the applicant had a hard time adjusting to civilian life again. The applicant asked for mental help but it was denied. The applicant began to party to hide being gay and to mask PTSD. Even after the first offense, the applicant had asked for help but they only put the applicant in the ASAP program. That did not include mental therapy for PTSD. After the second offense, to cover themselves, they had the applicant see a counselor, who again did not help with the mental status, just feelings about being discharged. The applicant strongly believes the discharge was harsh and unjust. The SGM told the applicant he was going to make an example out the applicant. Words were leaking out about being gay and on top of that, the applicant did not realize about suffering from PTSD. The applicant was having a really hard time adjusting to being back state side. The applicant had no sense of belonging and was put into a bad position. Every time the applicant had asked for any kind of help, the applicant was told to figure it out. The applicant understands in black and white these reasons do not justify the two offenses, but the applicant is sure that this was out of character. When discharged, the applicant spiraled and shortly was admitted to several mental hospitals. Then the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and things made sense. The applicant was an exemplary SGT, who earned many awards, that was and who the applicant is, and now ask that the characterization of service be upgraded. Evidence of records shows the applicant had a prior records review on 17 August 2011 (AR20100030491). The case is being reviewed a second time as a result of the applicant is now claiming PTSD. 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 Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Anxiety, and Alcohol Dependence. Post-service, the applicant does not have a service-connected rating from the VA and has not sought treatment. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. In summary, the applicant had 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 1 May 2019, 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 (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a 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 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 October 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for abuse of illegal drugs (i.e., she received a Field Grade Article 15 on 8 July 2008 for illegal use of cocaine); She received a Field Grade Article 15 on 23 September 2008 for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk; and She wrongfully stole $9,498.53 in BAH from the United States Government (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 October 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). On 12 November 2008, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's conditional waiver and referred her case to a administrative separation board On 19 November 2008, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and was advised of her rights On 5 January 2009, the applicant waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2008 / (sis 9) / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 April 2007 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25U10, SIG SUPT SYS SPEC / 12 years, 7 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 24 May 1996 to 15 August 1996 / NA ADT, 16 August 1996 to 19 December 1996 / UNC USAR, 20 December 1996 to 26 March 2003 / NA RA, 27 March 2003 to 27 April 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (2 November 2003 to 29 September 2004 and 1 October 2006 to 2 October 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCM, ARCOM, AAM-2, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 5 June 2008, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 2185 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 20 May 2008. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollments, dated 11 June 2008 and 3 September 2008, show the applicant was command referred as a result of receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for drug use, DUI, and apprehension. FG Article 15, dated 8 July 2008, for wrongfully using cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance between 16 May 2008 and 20 May 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,067 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 30 August 2008, shows the applicant was the subject of an investigation for drunken driving. General Officer Administrative Reprimand, dated 10 September 2008, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 30 August 2008 with a BAC of .118. FG Article 15, dated 23 September 2008, for having at the Trooper Access Control Point at Fort Riley, Kansas physically controlled a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk on 30 August 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $673 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 38 days, and restriction to the specified limits for 38 days. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; recommendation for award of the AAM; certificate for Honorable Discharge, dated 27 April 2007; and Oath of Reenlistment, dated 28 April 2007. 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(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. 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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as an NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, that after her second deployment to Iraq she had a hard time adjusting to civilian life again. She contends she asked for mental help but it was denied. She began to party to hide the fact that she was gay and to mask her PTSD. Even after her first offense she had asked for help but they only put her in the ASAP program. That did not include mental therapy for PTSD. After her second offense to cover themselves they had her see a counselor, who again did not help her with her mental status, just her feelings about being discharged. She strongly believes her discharge was harsh and unjust. Her SGM told her he was going to make an example out her. Words were leaking out that she was gay and on top of that she did not realize she was suffering from PTSD. She was having a really hard time adjusting to being back state side. She had no sense of belonging and she was put into a position she had no clue how to do it. Every time she had asked for any kind of help she was told to figure it out. She understands in black and white these reasons do not justify her two offenses, but she is sure that this was out of her character. When she was discharged she spiraled and shortly was admitted to several mental hospitals. Then she was diagnosed with PTSD and things made sense to why she behaved in the manor she did. She contends she was an exemplary SGT, who earned many awards, that was and who she is, and now ask that her characterization of service be upgraded. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, there is 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was denied mental health treatment or that she suffers with PTSD. The applicant's statements alone does 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. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought assistance through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. The 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. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service 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 1 May 2019, 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 (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a 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 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: 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 AR20180011455 1