1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 October 2018 b. Date Received: 26 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the unnecessary and unsubstantiated reason for discharge is prejudicial to the applicant as a civilian while attempting to obtain employment. The applicant served honorably on active duty as a combat officer for over eight years. The applicant served in OIF and OEF in a combat role as a platoon leader and commander. The applicant was engaged directly and indirectly with the enemy and received a CAB and two BSMs. The prescription in 2014 was known and accepted by superiors. The medication was switched by the brigade surgeon without specialty knowledge or consult-the applicant "was in a 'blacked out' state and accidentally overdosed." 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, Unspecified Psychoactive Substance Abuse, Benzodiazepine Abuse, Alcohol Abuse, and FAP Involvement. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Use Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Sedative Use, Opioid Use, Anxiolytic Use Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. 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 8 April 2020, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 16 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Article 15, dated 2 September 2014, which was filed in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced item. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 November 2014, requested resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: Honorable (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 June 2015 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 24 August 2006 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 29 / JD Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 19A 5) Armor, General / 9 years, 4 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (9 March 2006 to 23 August 2006) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Iraq (20 September 2008 to 13 September 2009), Afghanistan (29 November 2011 to 9 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM-2; MSM; ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-CS; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-3; NATO MDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Six OERs: 10 July 2007 thru 9 July 2008, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 16 April 2009 thru 2 November 2009, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 4 November 2009 thru 6 June 2010, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 7 June 2010 thru 27 April 2010, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 28 April 2012 thru 6 March 2013, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 7 March 2013 thru 31 January 2014, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GO Article 15 and its associated documents, dated 2 September 2014, for signing a false official statement between 1 April 2014 and 30 April 2014; wrongfully using "Oxycodone, a schedule II controlled substance" on 24 April 2014; and wrongfully endangering the safety and welfare of his daughter on 24 April 2014. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,843 (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 24 February 2015, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues and treatment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 31 October 2018; NPRC letter, dated 9 November 2018; Congressional correspondence; MSM certificate; two OERs: and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct, pursuant to resignation or voluntary discharge in lieu of elimination proceedings. 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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge based on unacceptable conduct 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence showing his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is BNC. 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 contends his current discharge is prejudicial to obtaining an employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident of misconduct and subsequently, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief he is requesting. The applicant's contentions regarding his prescription that was known and accepted by his superiors, that it was switched by the brigade surgeon without specialty knowledge or consult, and that he "was in a 'blacked out' state and accidentally overdosed," were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. 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. The applicant indirectly related that the incident that caused his discharge 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. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 8 April 2020, 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 AR20180016560 1