1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 February 2019 b. Date Received: 5 April 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 the first deployment to Iraq, the applicant developed an undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant returned with heightened anger issues and increased alcohol consumption. The applicant began feeling socially detached, and started having nightmares and waking up with night sweets. The applicant's pride would not allow the applicant to believe one's mental fortitude was affected by combat. After the second deployment, the applicant's condition worsened. If the applicant had sought counseling, it could have allowed the applicant to continue a successful military career. The discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident within 28 months of service with no other adverse action. The DUI incident was the only UCMJ action. There was no other contributing factor other than the undiagnosed PTSD, which led to abusing alcohol. After the second deployment, the applicant was promoted to Sergeant/E-5, one of the most proud moments in life and military career. The applicant's pride did not allow one to recognize the signs of the mental disturbance. The applicant has since sought counseling and prescribed medication for the mental instability. The applicant was prescribed medication in 2014 for muscle spasm resulting from panic attacks and migraines associated with PTSD symptoms. The applicant successfully transitioned into civilian life, where the applicant worked with a Congressman. The applicant assisted in aiding Veterans of Vietnam, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The applicant acquired an Associates in Liberal Arts and Social Behavioral Sciences, and is pursuing a BA in Nursing. The record of service should be considered, including continued improvement, rehabilitation, and service to the community. The undiagnosed PTSD led into actions and subsequently the discharge-the applicant's pride led the applicant to Soldier on without seeking appropriate assistance. To this day, the applicant still believes in the Army Core Values in LDRSHIP (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage.) 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. The applicant is 60% service-connected; 30% for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for some of the applicant's misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 2020, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on 26 March 2011, for which he received an Article 15. The applicant failed to report to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions on 30 July 2009, 9 July 2009, 28 May 2009, and 1 May 2009. The applicant escaped custody of the Hunter Army Airfield MP's who were authorized to apprehend him on 9 June 2009, for which he received an Article 15. The applicant was arrested for assault and battery on 30 May 2009. The applicant was arrested for public intoxication at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 9 September 2007. The applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on divers occasions at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 13 March 2007, and 8 February 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 July 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 6 October 2011, General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 October 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 April 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 9 years, 2 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (16 August 2002 to 14 August 2006) / HD RA (15 August 2006 to 26 April 2008) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (23 September 2007 to 7 November 2008), (30 October 2009 to 13 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3; ARCAM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR-2; ARCOTR; MUC; CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on several occasions; being arrested by civil authorities for different charges, including assault and battery; and imposition of Article 15 proceedings for escaping/evading arrest. CG Article 15, dated 9 September 2009, for escaping custody of the MPs, who were authorized to apprehend the applicant on 9 June 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Civilian court documents, dated 4 February 2010, showing the DUI charge of 5 September 2007, was dismissed on 4 February 2010. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 March 2011, indicates that the diagnoses of Axis I and II were deferred, and the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. FG Article 15, dated 31 March 2011, for physically operating a vehicle while the alcohol concentration on the applicant's breath exceeded 0.243 percent on 26 March 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,007 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 April 2011, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 26 March 2011. Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers with its summarized transcript of the proceedings reported that an administrative separation board that convened on 6 October 2011, found that the allegations which led to the notice of an administrative separation of the applicant according to paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, was supported by preponderance of evidence warranting separation, and recommended that the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (Note that the proceedings appear to be an incomplete copy.) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Rating Decision, dated 12 July 2018, indicates the applicant received a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 2 July 2019; VA Rating Decision, dated 12 July 2018; medical record; letter of recommendation, dated 5 August 2013; Associate in Arts certificate, dated 29 May 2014; applicant's "Army Career Book" with "Table of Contents" and its attachments. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that he worked with a Congressman; he assisted in aiding Veterans of Vietnam, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.; he acquired his Associates in Liberal Arts and Social Behavioral Sciences; and he is pursuing a BA in Nursing. 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. The applicant, as an NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. 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 regarding his behavioral health issues which involved heightened anger issues and increased alcohol consumption, and suffering from an undiagnosed PTSD after his deployments, were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with 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. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incident of misconduct, and his post-service conduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments 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 20 March 2020, 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 / 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 AR20190008364 1