1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 May 2019 b. Date Received: 22 May 2019 c. Previous Records Review: 25 October 2010, AR20100007774 (Reconsideration based on PTSD diagnosis and liberal policy) d. 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, the Army has made the applicant the man the applicant is today. Many of the positive effects in life were the result of military service. The applicant reenlisted as a career-bound Soldier. The applicant would not trade the service for anything in the world; however, the applicant does not feel right about the way it ended. The applicant developed a severe insomnia during deployment in Iraq. The applicant sought help for combat stress, which helped. The leadership advised the applicant later that having gone to combat stress or having PTSD looked bad on the military record for promotion purpose-it was not a wise move for the applicant's career. Soldiers were ridiculed for seeking help as they were considered "weak" and needed to "ruck up." The applicant dealt with the problems upon deciding not to seek help. The applicant began drinking heavily, followed by being counseled several times for missing formations but each time, informed the leadership that the applicant did not need any help as the applicant felt the applicant could get it under control. Shortly thereafter, the applicant started using drugs to deal with the problems. Several months after the drug use, the applicant failed a urinalysis. The applicant was referred to mental health; was advised against seeking help or showing that the applicant had a problem. (The applicant detailed the events leading up to discharge.) Because the applicant desired to reenlist, the applicant did not seek help for the behavioral health issues. However, it took several years after discharge and counseling through the VA to come to terms with the diagnosis of suffering from PTSD. In 2011, the psychologist wrote a letter to help with the request for having the discharge upgraded, but the request had already been denied. The applicant is now requesting reconsideration based on the current liberal consideration guidance. Since the applicant's treatment for PTSD, the applicant is employed with the State of Illinois as a civil servant and has become a productive member of society. The applicant also has a wonderful family. If the applicant was not discharged and not discouraged from seeking the help the applicant needed, the applicant could have received proper treatment-the applicant would still be in the military today. 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 Amphetamine Related Disorder, and Methamphetamine Abuse. The applicant is 70% service-connected; 50% for PTSD from the VA. 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 13 May 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. post-service diagnosis of 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 June 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: In May 2009 (undated memorandum) (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully use ecstasy between 12 January 2009 and 11 February 2009, for which he received a FG Article 15. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: In May 2009 (undated election of rights) (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 May 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: 63M10, Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems Maintainer / 2 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC (NIF) / NIF RA (20 July 2006 to 10 February 2008) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 May 2007 to 7 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-2; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An Electronic Copy of the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 20 February 2009, indicates the specimen collected on 11 February 2009, on an "IR" (Inspection, Random) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "MDA 501 MDMA 1918." Counseling statements for testing positive during a unit urinalysis; UCMJ action being recommended; involuntary separation action being initiated; bar to reenlistment being initiated; FG Article 15, dated 31 March 2009, for wrongfully using "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance" between 12 January 2009 and 11 February 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 April 2009, provided an "Axis I" diagnosis of "Amphetamine abuse." i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: VA Psychologist letter, dated 12 September 2011, indicates the applicant was diagnosed and treated for service-connected PTSD. VA Progress Notes, dated 6 June 2010 through 2 May 2019, reflect the applicant diagnosis and treatment for behavioral health, such as adjustment disorder with anxiety and PTSD, which was described as chronic and combat-related at 50 percent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 18 May 2019; self-authored statement; VA Psychologist letter, dated 12 September 2011; and VA medical records (Progress Notes), dated 6 June 2010 through 2 May 2019. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge and subsequent diagnosis and treatment for PTSD, he has been employed with the State of Illinois as a civil servant and have become a productive member of society. 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 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 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 due to an undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty, were carefully considered. A careful review of the applicant's documentary evidence indicates 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 accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments and 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 13 May 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. post-service diagnosis of 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 AR20190008946 5