1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2018 b. Date Received: 4 September 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, was discharged from service a few months before the end of the contract due to two Driving Under the Influence (DUI) infractions, which occurred off base. The events took place a few months apart almost immediately after returning from a 15 month deployment in in Iraq. Prior to service in the military, the applicant had never even had a drink. The applicant states, it seemed as though it was part of the culture and was desperately trying to assimilate as the applicant believed it was part of being "one of the guys." This was no excuse for what the applicant had done and it was the applicant's responsibility alone. The applicant states that during deployment, they lost two guys in combat that the applicant was really close to. Upon return from the deployment, the applicant engaged in heavy drinking binges and is lucky the applicant did not seriously injure or kill someone, or oneself. The applicant did not realize about possibly suffering from PTSD and never sought help. After the first DUI, the applicant was sent to finish out the rest of the enlistment at the brigade headquarters, where the applicant would be under closer supervision. The applicant was in state of self-loathing and saw the direction in which life was going and had suicidal thoughts, but could not stop drinking. The applicant received a second DUI and was given the option to either accept the discharge or go through a court-martial. The applicant was fortunate to be alive and had no one to blame, but oneself, so the applicant left quietly. This was one of the reasons why the applicant had not attempted to upgrade the discharge for many years. The applicant was not worthy, but much has happened since that time. Today the applicant is a full time New York City firefighter and a personal trainer at a local gym. The applicant is very conscious of health and wellness, has been with the FDNY for four years and has completed outpatient Alcohol/Substance Abuse Programs. The applicant is no longer in the National Drivers Registry for the offenses and has not had any infractions with the law. The applicant is a father of a healthy two year old boy and is very interested in continuing an education and continuing to succeed in life after a very rough patch. While in the screening process to join the FDNY, the applicant had to undergo a very extensive psychological exam in which the applicant had to disclose all this information to them. The applicant was hired on a 24- month stipulation, which meant if the applicant were in any trouble during the first two years on the job, they could instantly fire the applicant. The FDNY is a very tough job where things can go wrong instantly and since the applicant has begun the job, the applicant has been to at least seven funerals. The applicant is now a different person and if the applicant were to go through what the applicant went through nine years ago, maybe the applicant would have handled things differently. The applicant was very young and inexperienced in life and fully accepts responsibility for the actions, but believes one deserves a chance to continue an education. Before Iraq, the applicant served honorably and even received an Army Commendation Medal for actions overseas. The hope is that the Board grants an upgrade, which would be a life changing event and would allow the applicant to get the necessary closure the applicant needs knowing the applicant served the country with honor. 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 Abuse. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant has 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 15 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 13 November 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 3 September 2009, he was found drunk on duty and failed to report to his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: undated (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 October 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 January 2007 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (8 December 2007 - 28 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 17 September 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (3 September 2009); and, found drunk while on duty as an enlisted Soldier (3 September 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $784 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Notice of Traffic Infractions, dated 2 October 2009, reflects the applicant was charged with the infractions: Unsafe Lane Change; Exceeding the Speed Limit, (11-29 MPH over the limit). Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 October 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; three third party statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is a full time New York City firefighter and a personal trainer at his local gym; and, he has completed outpatient Alcohol/Substance Abuse Programs. 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 very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The applicant contends he was probably suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while the Army; however, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 15 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20180012515 1