1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 November 2018 b. Date Received: 5 November 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, an upgrade would allow use of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The applicant was granted 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and 10 percent for TBI with memory impairment. The events and issues that led to discharge were the results of undiagnosed PTSD and TBI. The applicant went AWOL twice due to staying home too long while on leave. The applicant had problems with drugs. 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, Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety, Barbiturate Abuse, Cannabis Dependence, Cocaine Dependence, Insomnia, and Opioid Dependence. Post-service, the applicant has a 100% service-connected disability rating from the VA for PTSD and 10% for TBI. In summary, although the applicant had a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 February 2019, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was wrongfully absent from his unit without authority on 3 March 2013, and did remain absent until 27 May 2013. He wrongfully absent himself from his unit without authority on 4 January 2013, and did remain absent until 9 January 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 2 August 2013 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 September 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman, and 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 6 years, 6 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: (25 October 2006 to 1 September 2009) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (24 December 2007 to 15 March 2009), Afghanistan (1 October 2011 to 26 July 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AAM-2; AGCM-2; NDSM; ACM-CS; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-2; NATO MDL; CIB; MUC g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2012 thru 28 May 2013, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Return of Absentee, dated 9 May 2013, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 9 May 2013 and returned to military control. Negative counseling statements for being considered for an involuntary separation; being AWOL; and failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. Four DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions), show the following changed in duty statuses of the applicant: dated 5 January 2013, from PDY to AWOL, effective 4 January 2013 undated, from AWOL to PDY, effective 9 January 2013 dated 5 March 2013, from PDY to AWOL, effective 2 March 2013 dated 28 May 2013, from AWOL to PDY, effective 27 May 2013 Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 4 June 2013, indicates the applicant was found fit for duty and any administrative action command determined appropriate, including administrative separation. FG Article 15, dated 29 May 2013, for being absent on 4 January 2013, and remaining absent until 9 January 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,201 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 16 July 2013, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 16 July 2013 and returned to military control. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 91 days (AWOL: (4 January 2013 to 8 January 2013, for 5 days), (2 March 2013 to 26 May 2013, for 86 days) (According to DD Form 214) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 30 May 2013, indicates the examiner noted behavioral health issues. VA Rating Decision, dated 29 March 2016, indicates the applicant was granted 100 percent evaluation for PTSD with TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 1 November 2018, and two VA Rating Decisions, dated 29 March 2016 and 9 May 2014. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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, paragraph 14-12c, 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 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 serious incidents 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. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved his undiagnosed PTSD and TBI, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. 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 applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 13 February 2019, 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 AR20180016402 1