1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 August 2018 b. Date Received: 16 August 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 pertinent part and in effect, served faithfully for the entire six years. The applicant reenlisted to become a career Soldier. The applicant applied to join the Special Forces, but was discharged before attending. The records show the applicant was on fast-track as a Soldier-the applicant jumped ranks from PFC to SGT. The applicant then served as the Truck Master, Training NCOIC, Orderly Room NCOIC, and Ammunition Specialist. The applicant was also the right hand to both the 1SG and Company Commander of the unit. However, the applicant allowed a personal life to interfere with the military career. The bad choices that were made do not define who the applicant is. Since discharge, the applicant successfully received an Associate's Degree, Nursing Diploma, and Bachelor's Degree. The applicant was also able to gain custody of the children, remarried, and added a beautiful daughter to the family. The applicant is a role model to the children and other Veterans, by sharing he story. The applicant served two campaign tours to OIF and OEF. Having served honorably and the accomplishments after discharge show the applicant deserves an honorable discharge. The applicant was employed with the Veterans Affairs hospital in San Antonio, Texas. However, the applicant is in the process of returning to school to complete a nursing degree so that the applicant may continue to serve with the VA hospital and those who served their country. The applicant is currently a supervisor in the healthcare field. The applicant will continue to serve as a leader, and be a role model to those under the applicant's authority. 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 depressed mood, Alcohol Abuse, Head Injury, and Martial Problem. The applicant is 70% service-connected; 30% for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not 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 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 September 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 August 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to extra duty on 15 July 2009. The applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty, the first formations, on 15 July 2009, 28 April 2009, 8 April 2009, 1 April 2009, and 23 March 2009. The applicant disobeyed his previous commander, CPT X., on multiple occasions by not setting up an allotment for the support of his wife and children; therefore, failing to provide support for his family, according to AR 608-99, for multiple months. The applicant assaulted SPC X. by grabbing her on the arm with his hand and violating a no-contact order by having contact with SPC X. He disrespected CPT X on multiple occasions between 25 March 2008 and 28 March 2008. The applicant was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol on 6 November 2007. The applicant was derelict in his duty by failing to properly observe a Soldier void a specimen into a sample bottle during a command directed urinalysis on 15 February 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 August 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 27 August 2009, contingent upon receiving no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 September 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 February 2006 / 6 years (NIF, but according to the Commander's Report and an ERB, which indicates an ETS date of 31 January 2012) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 6 years d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (1 October 2003 to 31 January 2006) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (18 September 2005 to 18 September 2006), Afghanistan (18 January 2008 to 3 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-3; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-3; NATO MDL; JMUA; MUC g. Performance Ratings: Two NCOERs: 1 July 2006 thru 30 June 2007, Marginal 1 July 2007 thru 14 May 2008, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: District Court Probation Order, dated 6 November 2007, indicates the applicant, having pleaded guilty and convicted of the offense of driving under the influence, was sentenced to 30 days civilian confinement and probation for two years with stipulations. Negative counseling statements for indebtedness; failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; failing to obey an order or regulation; failing to support his dependents on several occasions; imposition of a bar to reenlistment and a no- contact order; being informed of initiation of an involuntary separation proceedings; suspected of having an extra-marital affairs; being arrested for verbal domestic disorder; and being derelict in the performance of his duties as an observer for a urinalysis testing. FG Article 15 and its associated documents, dated 1 March 2008, for disobeying a commissioned officer on 9 July 2007, and violating a lawful general regulation by failing to provide financial support to his wife on 1 November 2007. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended), forfeiture of $1,118 pay per month for two months (suspended), 30 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 14 May 2008, vacated the suspended punishment of a reduction to E-4 imposed on 1 March 2008, based on behaving disrespectful in language towards CPT R.L.F, on two separate occasions on 25 March 2008 and 27 March 2008, and behaving disrespectful towards CPT R.L.F. by texting his commander certain words on 2 April 2008. FG Article 15, dated 26 May 2008, for behaving disrespectful in language towards CPT R.L.F. on 25 March 2008, behaving disrespectful towards CPT R.L.F. on two separate occasions by refusing to address her as Ma'am on 26 March 2008 and 28 March 2008, behaving disrespectful in language towards CPT R.L.F. on 27 March 2008, and behaving disrespectful towards CPT R.L.F., by texting his commander certain words on 2 April 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $724 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 10 July 2009, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions on 23 March 2009, 1 April 2009, 8 April 2009, 28 April 2009, and disobeying his commander on 1 May 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $433 pay per month for one month, and 14 days of extra duty. Summarized Article 15, dated 28 July 2009, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 15 July 2009. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 29 July 2009, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 16 July 2008, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 13 August 2018; two character reference letters; and college transcripts. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge, he successfully earned an Associate's Degree, Nursing Diploma, and Bachelor's Degree; he was also able to gain custody of his children, remarried, and added a beautiful daughter to his family; he was employed with the Veterans Affairs hospital in San Antonio, Texas; and he is currently a supervisor in the healthcare field. 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 his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available/record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization 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 allowing his personal life interfere with his military career affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Although the applicant did not present any behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance, including recognitions of his good conduct after leaving the Army. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. The available 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 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 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 AR20180012751 1