1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 March 2019 b. Date Received: 25 March 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, that the applicant served two combat deployments honorably in Iraq, a fifteen-month and a year. (The applicant detailed the events surrounding the first deployment.) The applicant described that during the deployment, many situations tested their abilities and mental strength over and over. After returning from deployment, the applicant tried drowning the things the applicant experienced, with alcohol. The drinking took the applicant down a dark and lonely road. Although the applicant completed a required alcohol class at the end of 2008, the drinking did not stop. Upon approaching a second deployment to Iraq, the drinking got worse. (The applicant further detailed the experiences during the second deployment.) The applicant used the gym to let out aggression and found ways to obtain alcohol to help drown the emotions from the first deployment. After returning home, the applicant was drinking daily. Once the applicant left the unit and into a recruiting command, life took a turn for the worst. The applicant began having financial hardships that led to obtaining an AER (Army Emergency Relief) grant, a temporary financial relief. The drinking continued, causing some life-altering actions with consequences. The applicant used available resources to try bettering oneself. The enrollment in counseling and therapy sessions did not help. The applicant was unable to bring the issues to the attention of the command, who would reprimand the applicant for going to the Military One Source. The applicant felt seeking counseling made the applicant weak and that it would affect the Army career. The applicant misused government property by using a GSA vehicle to travel to and from Los Angeles and Sacramento to visit family without thinking of the consequences. The applicant had an inappropriate relationship with a future Soldier, whom the applicant started dating before enlistment. The applicant was wrong for the inappropriate relationship. If the applicant could take it back, the applicant would do so without a thought. However, the applicant must live with the consequences of this decisions for the rest of life-it is difficult to wake up to, every day. The applicant also failed a drug test. The applicant took Trazadone to help sleep through nightmares as the applicant was unable to sleep much. The drug with an adverse side effect lasted hours after waking up. While attending a party where individuals were smoking marijuana, a conversation developed about not sleeping well. The applicant had been drinking, when the applicant decided to see if smoking would help. The applicant lives with each event every day and have been receiving therapy sessions through the Sacramento Veteran Center. The applicant struggles with anxiety and depression, causing the applicant to not know where the applicant belongs now. They are daily battles-waking up feeling hopeless and full of despair. The applicant struggles with the deployment experiences and the actions that led to receiving an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service, which has made it difficult to live a life worth living. There are days when the applicant does not want to see another person-staying in and keeping everything dark would suffice. The actions were not right by any means, but the applicant is paying the consequences every single day. The applicant is working on reestablishing oneself within the community. The applicant continues with the counseling session. The applicant recently joined a small men's group at his church to help build a support system. The applicant has been attending an anger management course to teach the applicant ways to cope these experiences. The service in the Army from the beginning to the end and both deployments should be taken into consideration for an upgrade. 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 Marital Problem, Major Depressive Disorder, Depression, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Unspecified Trauma Disorder, Stressor Related Disorder, PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Opioid Use Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read 3 for reentry code, as required by Army Regulations. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In that the applicant, on 10 March 2013, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Regulation 700-5, paragraph 2-4e, dated 15 December 2008, by wrongfully using a Government-owned vehicle (GOV) for unofficial purposes, in violation of Article 92, UMCJ. In that the applicant, on diverse occasions between 1 March 2012 and 12 March 2013, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Regulation 60-25, paragraph 2-1a(1), dated 4 February 2009, by wrongfully engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. X., a high school student and subject of recruiting efforts, to wit: exchanging nude photographs of another and other sexually inappropriate text messages, as well as having sexual intercourse on multiple occasions in his private dwelling, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In that the applicant, between 1 November 2012 and 30 November 2012, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREC Regulation 600-25, paragraph 2-1a(2), dated 4 February 2009, by wrongfully borrowing money from Ms.X., a high school student and subject of recruiting efforts, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In that the applicant, on divers occasions between 16 March 2012 and 12 March 2013, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with Ms. X, a woman not his wife, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. In that the applicant on 12 June 2014, wrongfully used marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 June 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 24 September 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 September 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 January 2007 / 6 years, but extended the period to 7 years, 5 months on 25 October 2010 (any extensions or reenlistments thereafter, is NIF) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B24, Infantryman / 9 years, 1 month, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (23 August 2005 to 28 January 2007) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 June 2006 to 13 September 2007), (7 August 2009 to 21 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AGCM-2; NDSM; ICM-3CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-2; VUA; CIB g. Performance Ratings: Six NCOERs: 1 October 2009 thru 30 September 2010, Fully Capable 1 October 2010 thru 25 June 2011, Fully Capable 26 June 2011 thru 25 June 2012, Among the Best 26 June 2012 thru 21 October 2012, Fully Capable 22 October 2012 thru 21 October 2013, Marginal 22 October 2013 thru 26 September 2014, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, dated 22 April 2013, presents the findings and recommendations of a Commander's Inquiry regarding allegations of recruiter misconduct against the applicant, the inappropriate use of a government vehicle (GOV) and fraudulent us of government gas card. CG Article 15, dated 29 May 2013, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully using a Government vehicle for unofficial purposes on 10 March 2013. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $631 (suspended). CID Report, dated 29 October 2013, reports that the applicant was the subject of an investigation for child pornography. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 April 2014, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 17 year old high school student and subject of recruiting efforts in violating of UR 600-25, paragraph 2-1a and Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ. CID Report, dated 26 June 2014, reports that the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of marijuana. Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers with its summarized transcript, reports on the findings and recommendations of an Administrative separation board that convened on 2 September 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 2 February 2013, indicates the examiner noted ongoing treatment of the applicant for behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 February 2014, provides an "AXIS I" as "300.00 Anxiety NOS," and positive screenings for PTSD and mTBI, but that further evaluation revealed the applicant did not meet the full criteria for either diagnoses. Applicant's documentary evidence: Sacramento Vet Clinic letter, dated 31 December 2018, details the applicant's ongoing behavioral health issues, such as "high levels of Anxiety," possibly resulting from PTSD as a result of his service in Iraq, that he has daily depressive bouts, anxiety and stressors with intrusive recollections of war trauma, trouble remembering important parts of military experiences, and has avoidant behaviors, a sense of foreshortened future, sleep disturbances, and trouble concentrating. VA health records consisting of progress notes, dating in January 2015 through February 2018, reflects on the applicant's behavioral health issues involving PTSD and treatment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: None provided with the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 20 March 2019, with self-authored statement; Sacramento Vet Clinic letter, dated 31 December 2018; 2018-2019 articles on Veterans and discharges related to PTSD; DD Form 214; and VA Form 10-5345a (Individuals' Request for a Copy of their own Health Information) with VA health records consisting of progress notes. 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 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The service record further confirms that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and a reentry code of 3. 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's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved his PTSD symptoms resulting from his two combat tours in Iraq, were carefully considered. A careful review of the record of evidence and the applicant's documentary evidence indicate the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. 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 and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 4 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read 3 for reentry code, as required by Army Regulations. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes 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 / 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 AR20190005798 1