1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 May 2019 b. Date Received: 7 May 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge should be upgraded based on inequity and impropriety as discussed in the legal memorandum submitted in a prior application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). On 24 October 2018, in a prior request for consideration to ADRB: (AR20180016778), the applicant, through counsel, seek relief contending, that the applicant had a stellar career and was routinely recognized for accomplishments and earned several awards. The applicant was being groomed for Battalion command and respected by peers and superiors. The effects of the applicant's deployments had affected the applicant and life was spiraling downward despite discipline and dedication to get the job done for the Army. Although the applicant gave over 14 years of life to the Army, three and a half of those years deployed to Iraq (three deployments) and eight months (two deployments) to Qatar, the applicant needed help. The deployments had taken a toll, along with the deaths of the mother, father, and grandmother all within several years while deployed. Counsel stated, the applicant's alcohol addiction had caused the applicant to reach the limits of potential as noted by the Army. Just like that, an officer who gave life to the Army was a person with no potential. Counsel stated, the applicant self-medicated with alcohol to cope with grief and undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant is regretful about the lack of judgment that caused the applicant to drink and drive, those who are addicted to alcohol and use it as self-medication have a blind spot and are not able to exercise judgment when it comes to alcohol abuse. The applicant was suffering from PTSD; which the applicant did not know, but had the classical symptoms. While the applicant had anxiety and depression, the applicant thought this was the natural consequence of the deaths in the family and did not put the pieces together. The applicant was not familiar with PTSD and felt one was strong enough to handle whatever life threw. Since discharge, a psychologist the applicant was referred to by the VA diagnosed PTSD related to service in the Army. The applicant continues to get treatment, claim for PTS,D and other medical conditions are pending at the VA. The applicant is currently taking online classes to become a certified sports agent and continues to go to the VA to receive treatment for PTSD, has turned life around and is abstinent from alcohol. While the applicant is still suffering, the applicant has not given up hope for the future and is working to be able to have a new career and livelihood. Counsel stated, based on the Department of Defense Guidance regarding PTSD, and merits the Board granting the applicant the relief requested. The applicant was not a criminal, but rather a man broken by war while honorably serving the country. The applicant did not steal or destroy military property or defraud the US Government. The applicant did not sexually assault anyone or hurt anyone. The applicant did not fail to obey orders or shirk duties. The applicant did everything possible to be the best officer. But, the applicant developed an addiction to alcohol due to the stress and strains of three combat tours to Iraq and two tours to Qatar. Counsel questions the equity of the applicant's discharge by comparing the applicant's service and the circumstances of the case to an officer who never deployed, never suffered from PTSD and never self-medicated to deal with pain; and, yet receives an honorable discharge after serving for four years. Counsel further details the contentions and the circumstances in the allied legal brief provided with the application. 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, Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant is 70% service- connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Anxiety, PTSD, and Major Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2019, and by a 3-2 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, Chapters 4-2B and 4-24A (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(5), b(8), and c(5), due to his personal misconduct and for substantiated derogatory information filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record. The elimination action was based on the following specific reasons: On or about 13 September 2014, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving with a suspended license at or near Sumter County in Sumter, SC, for which he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, which was filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record. He failed to report the below misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 380-67, Personnel Security Program (the regulation governing security clearance procedures). On or about 19 December 2009, at or near Chatham County, GA, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level of .177%. On or about 23 May 2010, at or near Macon County, GA, he was again arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of .182%. On or about 18 January 2011, at or near Fulton County in Atlanta, GA, he was convicted of wrongfully acquiring a license plate for the purpose of concealing the identification of a motor vehicle and for driving with a suspended license. On or about 28 December 2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving with a suspended license at or near Fulton County in Hapeville, GA. Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced items. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 13 November 2015 (4) Show Cause Authority Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 16 December 2015, the Show Cause Authority recommended approval of the applicant's request to resign in lieu of elimination. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 June 1996 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Bachelor's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 14A, Air Defense Artillery / 20 years, 5 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ROTC, 27 August 1994 to 31 May 1996 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (13 April 2003 to 12 July 2004; 16 March 2007 to 15 May 2008), Qatar (26 September 2013 to 6 March 2014; and 20 January 2015 to 19 March 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM-2, MSM-2, ARCOM, ICM-4CS, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 7 February 2003 to 16 December 2005 / Best Qualified 17 December 2005 to 30 May 2008 / Best Qualified 31 May 2008 to 14 May 2010 / Best Qualified 15 May 2010 to 8 November 2012 / Best Qualified 9 November 2012 to 1 June 2013 / Best Qualified 2 June 2013 to 2 June 2014 / Highly Qualified 3 June 2014 to 2 June 2015 / Not Qualified 3 June 2015 to 2 June 2016 / Highly Qualified 3 June 2016 to 15 November 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DPS Incident Report, dated 19 December 2009, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence-alcohol and issued a warning for speeding and open container. DPS Incident Report, dated 23 May 2010, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence and failure to dim lights. Request for Police Report (memo), dated 25 February 2015, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence on 13 September 2014. Hapeville Police Department Investigative Narrative, dated 13 March 2015, the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving with a Suspended License; and, Failure to Maintain Lane. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 March 2015, for being detained by the Sumter County Sheriff's Office, on 13 September 2014, after an officer observed the applicant driving erratically. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed his apparent intoxication, that his license was suspended, and that he had an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. At the traffic stop and subsequent to his arrest, he refused to take a lawfully requested test to measure his blood alcohol content. Electronic Rap Sheet, dated 17 September 2015, reflects the applicant's criminal history included the following charges: Driving Under the Influence of alcohol / 19 December 2009 / Georgia State Patrol Acquiring License Plate for Purpose of Concealing Identification of Motor Vehicle; Driving While License Suspended or Revoked / 16 January 2011 / Atlanta Police Department Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol; Driving While License Suspended or Revoked / 28 December 2011 / Hapeville Police Department Resignation in Lieu of Elimination Case documents, dated 30 October 2016. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 February 2016, 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 mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol use disorder, Severe. Medical Retention Decision Point Review, dated 6 June 2016 reference the applicant being referred to a Medical Evaluation Board based upon identified behavioral health conditions. LHI, Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 1 August 2018, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and allied legal brief and all listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is currently taking online classes to become a certified sports agent and continues to go to the VA to receive treatment for his PTSD, and has turned his life around and is abstinent from alcohol. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 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. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct. 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 change to his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Counsel provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Counsel contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." 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 through legal counsel seeks relief contending, the applicant self-medicated with alcohol to cope with his grief and his undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol use disorder, Severe. 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 9 February 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible 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. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. It should be noted; the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought assistance through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant contends that he had good service which included three combat tours. 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 for his accomplishments. The applicant believes his discharge is inequitable by comparing his service and the circumstances of his case to an officer who never deployed, never suffered from PTSD and never self-medicated to deal with his pain; and, yet receives an honorable discharge after serving for four years. However, the method in which another Officer's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): AD HOC documents - 2 pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20190005591 7