1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2019 b. Date Received: 8 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the evidence reflects honorable service, good conduct, and ability to perform above the standards before and during combat deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant provides evidence of how the applicant and other Soldiers from the platoon all struggled with readjustment to garrison service. The applicant states that after successful completion of basic training, the applicant was discharged from active duty and transferred to the Active Reserve component, wherein the applicant had outstanding service. The commander personally recommended that the applicant transfer to active duty infantry due to outstanding performance. The applicant's personal motivation for wanting to go to Active Duty was a desire to fight on the frontlines in the war in Afghanistan against those who were responsible for September 11th. This is the reason why the applicant chose to be in the infantry, which resulted in having to go back to basic training to complete the infantry portion of basic training. The PT scores at the end of infantry training, resulted in being sent directly to Airborne school. When the applicant joined an infantry platoon, the applicant had to prove oneself with peers due to originally being an engineer. Overtime the applicant was able to prove oneself and then deployed to Afghanistan. During the deployment, the platoon experienced the most significant actions, took the most number of casualties, and had the most Soldiers killed in action. The platoon strength was reduced by the end of the deployment to half its size. The platoon was initially conducting foot patrols, quick reaction force duty, and battle damage assessments (BDA) of every artillery fire mission. Often times their base would be attacked by Taliban knowing that their platoon would be sent out on the BDA, and then they would ambush them. The applicant describes how the unit would often be on missions, deprived of sleep and lost half of the men as casualties throughout the deployment. The applicant was present each time a Soldier was wounded and when a friend was killed. The applicant describes the situation as being ordered to do the impossible, which they did. The platoon was responsible for manning a four man over watch outpost over an Afghan Border Patrol (ABP) compound. The platoon had intercepted radio transmission from the ABP and ANA, who were talking with the Taliban and as a result the platoon never felt secure and had many incidents of the ABP shooting at them. The applicant earned the ARCOM for outstanding service in combat and earned the Combat Infantry Badge for the frequent engagements with the enemy. After redeployment, everyone in the platoon started drinking alcohol heavily. The applicant witnessed many from the platoon crying, fighting, and drinking heavily. The applicant began to have suicidal thoughts and had an unreported suicide. The applicant was afraid to seek mental health due to the stigma from an infantry unit. The applicant did not want to be viewed as weak, but eventually sought mental health. The applicant did not fully disclose the condition, as the applicant feared being labeled as weak and being minimized by the unit. The applicant drank heavily to cope with combat experiences and became suicidal. On one occasion, the applicant used cocaine while intoxicated and later failed a urinalysis. The applicant received punishment under the UCMJ and was chaptered out. During the same time 30 to 40 other Soldiers in the unit were also being chaptered out and the applicant believes the Army was targeting returning Soldiers who were struggling with readjustment, to achieve its down-sizing objective. The applicant was never given a second chance or allowed to seek treatment for substance use or suicidal behavior related to PTSD. The applicant was discharged unfairly and did not follow Army standards regarding Soldiers, who were struggling with PTSD. The applicant felt betrayed, alone and unsupported and did not know what how to cope with combat experience. Since discharge, the applicant struggles with PTSD and suicide. The applicant has worked to rebuild life and has not had any issues with the law. The applicant has sought treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Vet Center and is currently 70 percent service- connected for combat related PTSD and has been deemed unemployable. The VA has also accepted a sister in the caregiver program to assist with treatment due to the severity of PTSD. The applicant is involved in a local church and is helping disabled adults. The applicant has been unfairly discharged for one night of making mistakes related to undiagnosed PTSD and hopes that the Board will grant an upgrade, so that the applicant can have some closure and have the discharge reflect the applicant's passionate and honorable duty to the country. 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 PTSD and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant has a 70% service-connected rating from the VA for PTSD. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Severe Alcohol Use Disorder, and Bipolar I Disorder. In summary, the applicant had 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 26 April 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 diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), a prior period of honorable service, 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), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 December 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His use of a controlled substance, cocaine. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 October 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 November 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 July 2008 / 3 years, 12 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 5 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 22 June 2007 - 28 July 2008 / HD IADT, 13 November 2007 - 2 May 2008 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (27 February 2009 - 3 March 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 12 July 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 206 (cocaine), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 1 July 2010. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 23 July 2010, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when he provided a urine specimen on 1 July 2010, which subsequently tested positive for cocaine. FG Article 15, dated 30 August 2010, for wrongfully using cocaine (between 29 June and 1 July 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 18 October 2010, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 30 August 2010, was vacated because the applicant wrongfully broke restriction on 5 October 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 August 2010, 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: PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 13 January 2018, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD (to include unspecified depressive disorder). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 638; DA Form 4187; two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; attorney correspondence; 13 letters of support; VA summary of benefits letter; Social Security Administration letter; Criminal History Record Check; Abstract Driver Record; Short Term Disability benefits letter; five Toledo Vet Center letters; VA Psychiatrist care letter; Active duty medical treatment records; copies of his military award and training certificates; two professional training certificates; and, a Diploma. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has worked to rebuild his life and has not had any issues with the law and is involved in his local church helping disabled adults. The applicant provided evidence, which reflects he has completed professional certifications adult from the America Red Cross and Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities. 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(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). 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 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, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. 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(2), 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 (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." 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 PTSD; 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 25 August 2010, 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 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 applicant contends his unit was targeting Soldiers who were struggling with PTSD, for separation to meet down-sizing objectives. However, 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 applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character. They all recognize how PTSD has affected the applicant's life post-combat; 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 26 April 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 diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), a prior period of honorable service, 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), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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 / RE-3 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 AR20190002812 1