1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 May 2019 b. Date Received: 31 May 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, all though his service was short he believes he impacted many. From the moment he joined, he embodied the mind and heart of an infantryman and worked hard at work, and at home to make himself a better Soldier. The applicant's fitness regiment, his eating habits, and his mentality he hardened to be a better Soldier. In March 2017, he hurt his back and was in much pain. Though his back was hurt, he still trained with his unit and worked out while searching for the answers to get his back better. During this time, he was going to the PA to get help and after some months, they just started telling the applicant it was in his head, or he was lying, and really was not in pain. This weighed on him heavy because these were not the cases at all, and they would not give him an MRI to check his back. The applicant states, he was just searching for the answers to get his back better so he could continue to be an Infantryman, which was something he wanted to be his whole life. In December 2017, the applicant went home to see his family where his parents told the applicant to go get an MRI, which reflected he had a herniated Disc on his L5. When the applicant returned to his base, he went straight to the PA and gave him the results of the MRI. The applicant was required to get another MRI to make sure, because they said, civilian doctors will say anything to get patients to spend money. The applicant received another MRI in February 2018, which had the same results. This was very hard for him, up until the MRIs, the applicant was still training with his unit, helping complete the company's missions, all while being in excruciating pain. After the MRIs, he was given muscle relaxers and high strength ibuprofen. The applicant was very depressed; but he did not know what to do. The applicant was literally watching what he worked hard for, what he bled for, literally destroyed his body for, just slip through his hands. This was the hardest time he ever had in his life. Between being depressed, going through the pain, and taking the pills they gave him, and going to all the different doctors, he was just not in the right mind. The applicant states, these events do not excuse him for what happened on the night he totaled his car, but they did not help either. After the night he totaled his car, he was in bad shape mentally, but thankfully no other physical damage happened. The applicant accepted his punishment without complaint and worked hard to rewrite his wrongdoing, to be a better Soldier, to make sure his battle buddies did not make the same mistake he did. His Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) began because the applicant went through all his medical options and nothing made his back better. The applicant believed he took his punishment and would be medically discharged out of the Army and then would figure out what he would do with the rest of his life. This was not the case as they sent up a DUI chapter to kick the applicant out in September 2018. The applicant did everything in his power to fight this, he went to JAG for legal advice, which they did not help him; had NCOs write up character statements; and, even went and talked to the Command Sargent Major of his division. Even after all this fighting, the separation authority still made the decision to kick him out. The applicant states his hopes is his current position is understood and that he bled for the red, white, and blue; and loved being an infantryman. The applicant further details his contentions in a self-authored letter to his congressional representative. 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), are void of a BH diagnosis. While liberal consideration was applied, records are void of a mitigating behavioral health diagnosis and chronic lower back pain does not mitigate drinking and driving. The applicant is 40% service connected - non BH related. Back pain service connection existed prior to service and connection was denied. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 6 January 2021, and by a 5-0 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 February 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 September 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 31 March 2018, he operated a motor vehicle while drunk. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 November 2018, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 January 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 May 2016 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 15 May 2018, reflects that on 7 May 2018, Fort Stewart Police received from the Department of Defense, Armed Forces Examiner System a consultation report on contributor material in reference to a blood sample obtained from the applicant under the Georgia Implied Consent Law. The applicant's sample was screened for Ethanol which the blood contained 0.165g percent of ethanol. Ethanol was identified and quantitated by headspace gas chromatography flame ionization detection at a limit of quantitation of 0.209 percent. The blood was also screened for drugs which was negative. The applicant was transported to the Fort Stewart Military Police Station by his command and was further processed and issued a Suspension of installation Driving Privileges (1 year). The applicant was released to his Unit. FG Article 15, dated 6 August 2018, for physically controlling a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in his blood or breath equaled or exceeded the applicable limit causing the vehicle to eject and injure PFC J. M (31 March 2018). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $918 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 March 2018, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None submitted with the application. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; three character statements; self-authored statement; Congressional Inquiry with allied documents. 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. 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 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 he became extremely depressed because of his circumstances. However, the service record contains no evidence of depression diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 6 January 2021, and by a 5-0 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 / 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 AR20190007698 1