1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 June 2018 b. Date Received: 2 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served his country honorably and he served abroad away from family, friends and loved ones. He was charged with DUI, completed his punishment and was still discharged. He developed severe anxiety, depression and agitation and ultimately PTSD while on his Iraq deployment. He returned and began drinking heavily. 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 disturbance of conduct; Adult physical abuse by spouse/partner; Alcohol Abuse; Alcohol Dependence; Anxiety Disorder NOS; Marital Problem; Partner Relational Problem. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Use, unspecified; PTSD. The applicant is not service-connected for a BH condition. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 December 2021, 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: 7 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 October 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; on 15 March 2013, he was placed under arrest by the St. Robert, Missouri Police Department for driving while intoxicated. He submitted to a chemical test which revealed that his BAC was .187, over twice the legal limit. For this offense he was given a General Letter of Reprimand; the next month, he was arrested for domestic assault consummated by battery (16 April 2013); he has also been charged with driving on a suspended license. It was discovered that this is a pattern with him, driving on a suspended license in 2012 and domestic abuse twice in 2010; and he took it upon himself to drive with a suspended license on post after his post privileges had been suspended for a year and did not notify his chain of command. For the driving while intoxicated he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and he received an Article 15 for wrongfully operating a vehicle on post with a suspended driver's license. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF, government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 5 years, 4 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 August 2008 to 17 November 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / SWA / Iraq, 28 June 2010 to 14 June 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 11 April 2013, for driving while intoxicated. On 15 March 2013 at 0029, he entered the Kum & Go gas station in St. Robert, Missouri and instigated a conversation with a Pulaski County Sherriff's Deputy. As he (applicant) was talking with the Deputy, he detected a strong odor of intoxicants emanating from your (applicant's) breath. At the Police Department he submitted to a chemical test of his breath, which revealed that his BAC was .187, over twice the legal limit. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Letter, MAJ (Ret), A.V., LCSW, LISW, BCD; dated 22 May 2018, relates the applicant was experiencing severe anxiety, depression and agitation during his deployment. The circumstances of his condition were primary due to his duty in a combat environment. Unfortunately, many of our documents of treatment did not upload to our system in Germany from our MC4 system. As a clinician, she had a tentative diagnosis of PTSD due to adverse childhood experiences, or complex trauma, and his deployment only exacerbated these symptoms. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages); DD Form 214; self-authored statement; letter, MAJ (Ret), A.V., LCSW, LISW, BCD; and eight character / support statements. 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 14-12b 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. 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 service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, he served his country honorably and he served abroad away from family, friends and loved ones. 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 further contends, he was charged with DUI, completed his punishment and was still discharged. 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 applicant also contends, he developed severe anxiety, depression and agitation and ultimately PTSD while on his Iraq deployment. The applicant submitted a letter from a retired clinician that revealed the applicant was experiencing severe anxiety, depression and agitation during his deployment. His circumstances and condition were primary due to his duty in a combat environment. He had a tentative diagnosis of PTSD due to adverse childhood experiences, or complex trauma, and his deployment only exacerbated these symptoms. The applicant additionally contends, he returned and began drinking heavily. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were in and some were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 2 December 2021, 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 / 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 AR20180012482 3