1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 February 2019 b. Date Received: 6 May 2019 c. Counsel: 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) and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, is currently being treated for medical conditions at the VAOPC in Laredo, Texas. The applicant's medical conditions originated while was serving on active duty. The applicant has been denied service related benefits due to the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation. These classifications have kept the applicant from attaining service related benefits. The applicant served in Afghanistan and one year after returning from overseas, the applicant's mental difficulties began to really affect performance and duties towards military service. The applicant states the medical condition has been reviewed by the VA and approved for medical treatment, which reflects that the applicant had a medical condition while on active duty, which affected performance. The medical condition of PTSD became worse while on active duty and led to discharge. 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 Acute Reaction to Stress. Anxiety Disorder NOS, Episodic Mood Disorders, Opioid Dependence, Borderline Personality Traits, Antisocial Personality Traits, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood with Cluster B traits. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and Provisional PTSD. 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 18 September 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 November 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 5 May 2010, he went absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit of assignment and was subsequently dropped from the rolls of the unit (DFR) on 4 June 2010. He remained absent until on or a about 12 July 2010. This serious offense had a negative effect upon the unit's readiness. In addition, the following UCMJ violations had also been documented: On at least two occasions on or about 2 August 2010, and on or about 21 August 2010, he failed to report to the Staff Duty Officer to perform Extra Duty as directed by the Article 15 that he received on 16 July 2010. He also failed to report to the unit's 0630 accountability formation on or about 16 August 2010. On 13 August 2010, he was apprehended by the Fort Campbell, Kentucky Military Police (MP) and was charged with being drunk and disorderly. During this incident, the MPs stated that he became disorderly when they instructed him to calm down. When tested, his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .137. On divers occasions, he presented checks from the Fifth Third Bank (Check #615 for $83.28, Check #616 for $24.29, Check #617 for $53.95, Check #618 for $69.12, Check #619 for $60.00 and Check #620 $60.00) purchase or cash to the Fort Campbell, Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and failed to maintain sufficient funds in the bank account from which the checks were drafted. These actions, combined with the serious offenses of being AWOL and DFR, bring discredit upon his unit and the Armed Forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 3 September 2010, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 September 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 November 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 November 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35F10, Intelligence Analyst / 4 years, 3 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 August 2006 - 10 November 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 April 2008 - 15 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 5 May 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 4 June 2010; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 12 July 2010; From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 7 October 2010; and, From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 24 October 2010. FG Article 15, dated 16 July 2010, for being AWOL (between 5 May and 12 July 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 and extra duty for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 13 August 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for; Drunk and Disorderly (On Post); and, Driving Under the Influence (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 30 August 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on three occasion between 2 and 21 August 2010;for being drunk and disorderly (13 August 2010); for writing bad checks without maintaining sufficient funds to fulfill payment on six occasions between 4 and 8 April 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and, extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 12 October 2010, reflects the applicant was charged, plead guilty to nine specifications. Subsequently, the applicant was found guilty to all specifications as follows: Charge I: Article 86: Specification 1: on or about 3 September 2010, go from him appointed place of duty, to wit: Extra Duty located at Building 7510; . Specification 2: on or about 4 September 2010, fail to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 Extra Duty located at Building 7510; Specification 3: on or about 5 September 2010, fail to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 Extra Duty located at Building 7510; Specification 4: on or about 6 September 2010, fail to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 Extra Duty located at Building 7510. Specification 5: On or about 7 September 2010, without authority, fail to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 Extra Duty located at Building 7510. Charge II: Article 90: The Specification: Having received a lawful command from MAJ N.A.H., his superior commissioned officer, to not consume alcohol, did, at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on or about 11 September 2010, willfully disobey the same. Charge Ill: Article 92. Specification 1: Did, at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on or about 8 September 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4a(1), CAM Regulation 210-1, by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia. Specification 2: Did, at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on or about 8 September 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4b(4), CAM Regulation 210-1, by wrongfully possessing a prescription drug without it being accompanied by the original container. Charge IV: Article 134. The Specification: Was, at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on or about 11 September 2010, disorderly, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The sentenced adjudged: Confinement for 30 days. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 24 March 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 3 August 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 85 days The applicant's service record reflects he was AWOL from 5 May to 12 July 2010. / Apprehended by Civil Authorities CMA, 7 October 2010 - 24 October 2010 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA medical treatment records, which reflects the applicant was treated for PTSD, insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA medical records. 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. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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) 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 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, 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 (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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 contends the VA has diagnosed him with 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 reflects that on 3 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 that he served 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 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 18 September 2019, and by a 3-2 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 AR20190006127 1