1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 September 2018 b. Date Received: 17 October 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, that when the applicant returned from deployment, the applicant had a really hard time coping with issues. The applicant contends that the culture of the Army was to tough it out and not talk about your problems. The applicant started to abuse alcohol to cope with mental health issues and was drinking heavily. The applicant wasn't offered any type of treatment once the offense occurred as the paperwork for getting a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was already in the process prior to the legal sentencing. The applicant was informed that a discharge review board considers equity and propriety in making their determination. The applicant believes the issue of equity should be looked at regarding the discharge and the conclusion of the case. 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 anxiety/with anxiety and depressed mood, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The applicant is 100% 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 22 April 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, 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: 30 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 May 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for wrongfully operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 May 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 March 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (10 October 2011 to 11 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, ASR, GWOTSM, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 10 August 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving while intoxicated, failing to keep right, and moving from lane unsafely. New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Traffic Ticket for driving while intoxicated, failing to keep right, driving with .08 of 1% or more of alcohol, and moving from lane unsafely. Negative counseling statement for DWI -1st Offense with a BAC of .15 percent, failure to keep right and a lane violation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Assessment, the applicant makes reference to having been diagnosed with several mental health issues and as having an anxiety profile. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 April 2014, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with R/O Alcohol Abuse and R/O Anxiety Disorder NOS. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant met medical retention standard per AR 40-501. He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation or other administrative actions. He screened positive on mTBI and PTSD screeners; however he denied any post-concussive symptoms related to blast exposure and he did not consistently endorse full criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD as was thus cleared for TBI and PTSD. Medical documents submitted by the applicant indicate the Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded the applicant 70 percent service connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (also claimed as anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; personal statement; four character reference letters; military 201 file; STRs; VA Rating Narrative, VA Rating Code Sheet; VA Notification Letter; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy on the use of alcohol, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol policies. By abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his 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 that when he returned from deployment he had a really hard time coping with issues. He contends that the culture of the Army was to tough it out and not talk about your problems. He started to abuse alcohol to cope with his mental health issues and was drinking heavily. He wasn't offered any type of treatment once the offense occurred as his paperwork for getting a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was already in the process prior to the legal sentencing. He was informed that a discharge review board considers equity and propriety in making their determination. He believes the issue of equity should be looked at regarding his discharge and the conclusion of his case. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, while the applicant may believe his abuse alcohol was to cope with his mental health issues; the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief or help through his 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, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 April 2014, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with R/O Alcohol Abuse and R/O Anxiety Disorder NOS. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant met medical retention standard per AR 40-501. He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation or other administrative actions. He screened positive on mTBI and PTSD screeners; however he denied any post-concussive symptoms related to blast exposure and he did not consistently endorse full criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD as was thus cleared for TBI and PTSD. The post-service medical documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs was noted. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 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 his 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 22 April 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, 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 AR20180014714 5