1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 April 2019 b. Date Received: 17 May 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, after returning from Iraq, found the fiancée had left the applicant for someone she was dating while the applicant was deployed. The applicant was also battling the loss of many brothers in war. When the applicant attempted suicide, the applicant was hospitalized. At that time, the unit received a new commander and first sergeant. Upon returning from the hospital, the applicant was put on extra duty and hard work. The applicant was court-martialed in which the applicant was found not guilty of falsifying a sick call slip. Since leaving the military, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI by a civilian doctor at one's own expense because the applicant was unable to obtain VA assistance. Since the discharge, the applicant has been volunteering. The applicant is now part of the Senior Leadership (Indiana State Leader) for a Veteran Non Profit (Mission 22) that combats Veteran/ Active Duty suicides. It has helped the applicant cope with this condition. The applicant was a good Soldier, up to the point of returning home from combat and facing the real world. There was not much re-acclimatization or debriefing then, as there is now. The applicant never had issues with anyone. The applicant was a leader to his peers while in theater (Iraq/Kuwait). He can understand the characterization of discharge, but not the narrative reason and its corresponding codes, which the applicant feels is unfair. The applicant has raised thousands of dollars for active duty and veterans dealing with PTSD and TBI or other service-related issues, to help veterans through programs that saved lives. If the applicant received help during active duty, the applicant may still be serving, but now the applicant serves the country in another way. The current discharge has hindered the applicant from obtaining a good employment. It has not allowed the applicant to receive the benefits the applicant deserves. An upgrade would allow the applicant to receive VA help and better jobs. The applicant has a wonderful family now. The applicant devotes time giving back to others in need and dealt with what the applicant had to. The applicant was a well-decorated Soldier for the length of time served, which shows the applicant was a good Soldier, who had a hiccup. 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 Bipolar I Disorder. VA records only contain DoD content. Post-service diagnoses include Mixed Anxiety, Depressive Disorder, and PTSD. In summary, the applicant has 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 22 April 2020, 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 OBHI and PTSD), 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), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 April 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 March 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 15 December 2004, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial for making a false official statement. The applicant has also received several additional derogatory counseling, and an Article 15. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 May 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 January 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 2 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (3 June 2003 to 18 January 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling statements for falsifying an official document; malingering; lying to a senior NCO; missing movement; disobeying a direct order; attempting to purchase a vehicle with insufficient funds; setting-up payments for the month of October 2004, July 2004; listing of funds owed to Soldiers, individuals, and institutions; failing to maintain finances; writing multiple insufficient fund drafts; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; and being recommended for an involuntary separation due to reoccurrence of finance-related issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 October 2004, providing no diagnosis, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Record of Trial by a Summary Court-Martial with a charge sheet, indicates that on 15 December 2004, the applicant was found guilty of making a false official statement on 31 August 2004. The approved sentence on 10 January 2005, consisted of forfeiture of $100, 10 days of confinement without hard labor, and 15 days of restriction. Serious Incident Report, dated 27 December 2004, reports that the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possible overdose on chest pain medication and alcohol, and that there was an EMT response and the applicant being admitted to the emergency room. CG Article 15, dated 27 January 2005, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 22 December 2004. The punishment on a separate worksheet shows: a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $323, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Memorandum for Record, dated 25 February 2005, Subject: Summary of Previous Adverse Action/Corrective Training for the applicant, rendered by the unit commander, lists a summary of UCMJ actions, counseling statements, and commander's serious incident report. Memorandum for Record, dated 25 February 2005, Subject: Summary of Previous Adverse Action/Corrective Training for the applicant, rendered by the unit commander with its associated documents, lists a summary of actions taken to assist the applicant with resolving his personal and financial affair, and performing his military duties. The list includes drafts with insufficient funds and amount of loans. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 15 October 2004, indicates the applicant and examiner noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 24 April 2019, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he has been volunteering his time, and he is now part of the Senior Leadership (Indiana State Leader) for a Veteran Non Profit (Mission 22) that combats Veteran/ Active Duty suicides. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and document 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 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 that since leaving the military, he was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. However, there is no record of a PTSD/TBI diagnoses and the applicant did not provide documentary evidence of the PTSD/TBI diagnoses by a competent medical authority. If based on medical records available to the Board, 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. The applicant expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the veterans' benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents pf misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments and his complete period of service were or were 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 22 April 2020, 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 OBHI and PTSD), 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), and the separation code to JKN. 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 / 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 AR20190006964 5