1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 July 2018 b. Date Received: 12 July 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, believes the discharge was both improper and inequitable. The applicant states, the belief is supported by a few different points, but in no way is the applicant down-playing the actions nor asking for sympathy. The applicant states, the actions, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), on the night of 22 June 2018, were inexcusable, but the applicant does believe the circumstances surrounding the incident warranted some type of need for help. On 21 May 2016; the wife had a heart attack at the age of 21, which resulted in being hospitalized for a number of weeks, which they later learned it was brought on by copious amounts of stress, as well as a leaking Mitral Valve. Shortly following hospitalization, the applicant arrived home from the Armorers Course to find the wife and daughter with the car packed. The wife took the daughter and relocated to Florida, which was 1200 miles from the applicant. During the 10 months after the family left, the applicant struggled with crippling depression and fears of never again being adequate. The applicant did not allow this to impact job performance. On 16 March 2017, the applicant was selected to interview for a position in the Criminal Intelligence Unit on Fort Leavenworth. This unit began by selecting three of the most highly skilled, most versatile Corrections and Detentions Specialists within the brigade, which was approximately 800 Soldiers. The applicant was selected along with two other Soldiers and served in the unit from 26 March 2017, until the day after the incident occurred, 23 June 2017. Since the incident, the applicant voluntarily completed the Prime for Life class and currently has full driving privileges as the license was never suspended. After the final court date on 8 November 2017, the applicant completed 90 hours of community service, had paid in full his two years of probation payments, which the applicant completed before discharge. Following the incident and after all civilian and military legal procedures were presumably finished, the applicant was given a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and was told that there would be no other courses or avenues of punishment. On Approximately 15 January 2018, the applicant was informed that the separation process was being initiated. The applicant has deep remorse for these actions and is aware of the devastation the applicant could have emitted due to the negligence. This incident was the first on record, civilian and military, and does not believe that a single brief lapse in judgement should define one's military service, as a whole. The applicant is thankful for the Board's consideration of this case. The hope is to have this resolved within a year as the applicant is attempting to regain the GI Bill to attend school and obtain an AS in Criminal Justice Technology, and after, a BS in Public Safety Management. All of this is to prepare the applicant to become a member of the Florida State Highway Patrol. 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, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Anxiety. The applicant is 50% 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 18 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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: 23 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 January 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 June 2017, he was pulled over in Platte County, Missouri, for travelling 105 miles per hour (MPH) in a 65 MPH zone while intoxicated. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 2 February 2018, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 March 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 January 2015 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31E10, Internment/ Resettlement Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 16 October 2017, after he was pulled over in Platte County, Missouri, for traveling 105 miles per hour (MPH) in a 65 MPH zone on 22 June 2017. The officer smelled alcohol from his vehicle. He eventually provided a breath sample at the Platte County Jail which resulted in a blood alcohol content of 0.161. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; GOMOR with allied documents; ADAPT Completion Letter; Prime For Life Certificate; Orders 080-0002. 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 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 the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry 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 having family issues that 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. The applicant contends that he was severely depressed. However, the service record contains no evidence of depression 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. 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 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 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 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 18 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). 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 AR20180013358 1