1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 November 2018 b. Date Received: 13 November 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the mental health condition and serious family problems conjunctively mitigate or excuse the DUI, which was an isolated incident. The applicant sought treatment for heart palpitations in 2013, which revealed the applicant had sinus bradycardia with an arrhythmia. Three weeks later, the applicant reported for mental health treatment due to panic attacks. At that same time, the applicant also reported thoughts of self- harm the prior week, high levels of distress, severe depression including thoughts that the applicant would be better off dead or of hurting oneself in some way, and daily panic attacks and thoughts about hurting oneself to avoid contact with a supervising NCO. A subsequent behavioral counseling session during active duty elicited that the applicant had pulled the car off the road intending to crash it, but that the applicant pulled it back onto the road at the last moment. In 2013, the applicant discovered that the mother was sick, and that the sister was in jail. The applicant also started having relationship problems with the wife that led to daily frustration, anger and sadness. The applicant continued to report anxiety and poor sleep related to the martial separation. The applicant's counselor noted the applicant's pregnant wife was not planning on returning home to the applicant and was staying with family in another state. The applicant had not been able to speak with the wife and she had drove into town and moved out all her belongings. Later, the wife completely cut of all communications with the applicant, which contributed to the applicant's ongoing anxiety and poor sleep. In 2014, the applicant received a Driving Under the Influence charge, while driving to the airport to pick up a friend. The applicant explained the reason for drinking was that the applicant had learned the wife had given birth to their child, but the wife never informed the applicant, which caused the applicant great distress. The applicant never had another incident involving alcohol or other reported misconduct during service. Despite never having had the opportunity to meet the newborn son, the applicant's holiday leave was pulled and spent the holidays on duty. The applicant attended and completed ASAP and continued with both group and individual therapy for anxiety, depression, and poor sleep and appeared to be making progress. Since discharge, the applicant has received treatment for depression and anxiety. The VA has determined that the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depression was a progression from, and therefore related to, military service. The applicant has made major improvements and is actively working to better oneself. The Colorado arrest record demonstrates that the applicant has had no legal trouble since the DUI during service. The applicant obtained an associate's degree and has developed an ambitious degree plan to obtain a bachelor's degree in software engineering at the University of Colorado. The applicant works in the prison system, where the applicant has been employed at Cheyanne Mountain Re-Entry Center for over three years and has become a team leader of the Emergency Response Team that responds to facility disruptions, security threats and disasters. Counsel further details contentions in an allied legal brief. 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, Alcohol Abuse, Depression with Anxiety, and Martial Problem. The applicant is 70% service-connected; 50% 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 27 September 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and post- service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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: 9 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 July 2014, he operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 February 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 January 2013 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 2 years, 1 month, 26 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: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Criminal History report, dated 10 October 2018, reflects the applicant was charged with: Driving Under the Influence (4 July 2014); and, Traffic Offense Fail Obey Traffic Control Device (4 July 2014). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 February 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety; Occupational Problem. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 29 September 2015, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD with major depression, insomnia and anxious mood (claimed as adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with allied legal brief and all listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained his associates degree and is pursuing his bachelor's degree in software engineering. He works in the prison system and has become a team leader of the Emergency Response Team. The applicant has also provided evidence which reflects he has not had any criminal incidents since his discharge. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. 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 narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety; and, Occupational Problem; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 2 February 2015, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. 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 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize 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. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 27 September 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and post-service accomplishments. 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 AR20180016406 6