1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 October 2018 b. Date Received: 9 October 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to attend a local truck driving/equipment operator school. The applicant served honorably for over eight years and reenlisted twice during the time in service. After being injured during deployment in 2010, the applicant was regularly prescribed opiate/narcotic pain relievers. After being prescribed them for a few years, the applicant was suddenly cut off in 2014 after a change in primary health provider, with no treatment offered to help the applicant quit the medication the applicant had been on so long. Given the applicant had been prescribed them for so long, after being cut off, the applicant began self-medicating because the applicant was not only still in pain, but also had developed a dependency on the medication that had been prescribed by the Army for so long. The applicant realized the error in judgement, but without any support being offered to quit the long prescribed substance, the applicant just didn't know what else to do. Since leaving the Army in 2015, the applicant has worked hard to deal with the chemical dependency that was developed during the time in service. The applicant had been continuously clean and sober for over a full year now and is maintaining full time employment. The applicant joined the Army to be a motor vehicle operator and is hoping to continue that as a commercial truck driver. The applicant also requests to be provided a DD Form 214 for each of the three enlistment periods, rather than the one the applicant has covering all three. Regardless of the final discharge, the applicant did serve and complete two periods of honorable service, and believes that honorable service should be reflected on paper, opening the door for access to benefits based on that honorable service. 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, Personality Disorder, Opioid Use Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 July 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 8 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 April 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being apprehended on multiple occasion for shoplifting and multiple indebtedness (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 April 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 October 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 9 years, 4 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 January 2006 to 6 February 2008 / HD RA, 7 February 2008 to 18 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (12 April 2010 to 23 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM-2, ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 20 December 2013, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for civil charge: violation of a civilian protective order. Military Police Report, dated 13 January 2014, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for shoplifting and wrongful destruction of AAFES property. Military Police Report, dated 8 January 2015, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for civil charge: concealing or taking possession of merchandise (shoplifting). Counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 January 2015, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and Axis II for personality disorder (borderline & antisocial). It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Also a review of the applicant's medical records and result of the interview/psychological testing revealed an extensive history of impulsivity, unstable mood, frequent episodes of suicidal ideation and reckless behavior, dating back to the beginning of his military career in 2006. The behavioral pattern has persisted despite a long history of psychiatric treatment by numerous different providers suggesting that his problems were due to an underlying personality disorder rather than a treatable psychiatric illness such as depression or anxiety. The clinician recommended that the applicant's misconduct be addressed via the appropriate administrative chapters (14- 12) in AR 635-200 for his benefit, that of his unit and the United States Army. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; enlisted record brief; enlistment contracts; certificate for award of two AAM's; and a copy of his 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 under other than 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. 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 he served honorably for over eight year and reenlisted twice during his time in service. After being injured during deployment in 2010, he was regularly prescribed opiate/narcotic pain relievers. After being prescribed them for a few years, he was suddenly cut off in 2014 after a change in his primary health provider, with no treatment offered to help him quit the medication he had been on so long. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, although the applicant makes reference to his misconduct was the result of the medication he became addicted too; it should be noted, 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 expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to attend a local truck driving/equipment operator school. 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 also requests that he be provided a DD Form 214 for each of the three enlistment periods, rather than the one he has covering all three. Regardless of his final discharge, he did serve and complete two periods of honorable service, and he believes that honorable service should be reflected on paper, opening the door for him to access benefits based on that honorable service. However, in-accordance with AR 635-5, paragraph 2-1b(2), a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for enlisted Soldiers discharge for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214 under review shows he enlisted 31 January 2006 and immediately reenlisted 7 February 2008 to 18 October 2012 and 19 October 2012 to 8 June 2015. 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 24 July 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 AR20180016433 1