1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 September 2018 b. Date Received: 31 October 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, is 100 percent service connected for PTSD and TBI. The applicant earned numerous awards and decorations, two deployments to Iraq and other accolades. The applicant was led to go AWOL by things for 45 days before coming to one's senses. The applicant started auto medicating oneself with marijuana at the time. There was not adequate help for Soldiers suffering with PTSD and TBI and that lead to not seek the proper help due to all the fake people around the applicant. 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. The applicant is 70% service-connected for PTSD and 40% for TBI from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Induced Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, PTSD, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. 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 13 September 2019, 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. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and TBI), and a prior period of honorable service. 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 October 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; being AWOL. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 October 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant waived consideration of his by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 October 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 January 2002 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / GED Certificate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13B2P, Cannon Crewmember / 7 years, 10 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 January 2000 to 9 January 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq x2, 10 December 2004 to 5 April 2005 and 13 February 2003 to 15 February 2004 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, ICM, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, CAB, PUC g. Performance Ratings: October 2003 to September 2004, Fully Capable October 2004 to September 2005, Among The Best 1 October 2005 to 10 May 2007, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 27 September 2006, for knowing of his duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he negligently failed to report care for PV2 P.'s injuries, as it was his duty to do (4 September 2006); and with intent to deceive, make to MAJ W., an official statement, SFC R. left before PVTs A., L. and F. arrived, or words to that effect, which statement was false in that SFC R. did not leave (8 September 2006); reduction to Sergeant / E-5, forfeiture of $500 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. A positive urinalysis test coded CO (Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty), dated 15 August 2007, for THC. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None; however, the record of evidence shows the applicant was AWOL for 53 days, 20 June 2007 until 12 August 2007; surrendered to military authorities. This period of lost time is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29 dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 August 2007, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. He was mentally responsible, did not meet retention requirements AR 40-501, Chapter 3. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. VA statement of service connected disabilities, dated 14 December 2016, revealed the applicant was granted an evaluation of 100 percent disabling for PTSD with major depressive disorder and traumatic brain injury; and an evaluation of 40 percent disabling for TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement (three pages); DD Form 214; VA statement of service connected disabilities; nine character statements; 14 photos; two ARCOM citations; two NCO Academy diplomas; criminal background check; Three Star letter of commendation; receipt for inmate or detained person; FG Article 15 (two pages); two AGCM Orders 350-08 and 333-04; honorable discharge certificate; two VA Statements in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD; stressful incident number 2; WAMC Fort Bragg, NC, narrative summary; Cumberland County Court Documents; two personnel actions; Staff Sergeant Promotion order 107-021; Sergeant Promotion order 269-106; four Certificates of Achievement; and an oath of reenlistment. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 misconduct (serious offense), 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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, he is 100 percent service connected for PTSD and TBI. The applicant submitted a VA statement of service for connected disabilities, which revealed the applicant was granted an evaluation of 100 percent disabling for PTSD with major depressive disorder and traumatic brain injury; and an evaluation of 40 percent disabling for TBI. The applicant further contends, he earned numerous awards and decorations, two deployments to Iraq and other accolades. 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 also contends, he was led to go AWOL by things for 45 days before coming to his senses; and he started auto medicating himself with marijuana at the time. 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 additionally contends, there was not adequate help for Soldiers suffering with PTSD and TBI and that lead him to not seek the proper help, due to all the fake people around him. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, 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 applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the applicant's separation packet includes a positive 15 August 2007 drug test result labeled "CO" (command directed/competence for duty). The evidence indicates that the drug test was taken three days after the applicant returned from his AWOL period from 20 June 2007 until 12 August 2007. The timing / context of this test indicates that the drug test was miscoded. Based on the above, the evidence of record indicates that the 15 Aug 2007 positive drug test is a mislabeled IO test that was conducted on his return from AWOL pursuant to command policy. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for "Inspection Other" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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 13 September 2019, 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. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and TBI), and a prior period of honorable service. 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 AR20180014910 6