1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 June 2019 b. Date Received: 20 June 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, a change of his narrative reason for discharge to secretarial authority, and a change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code to a 2 or 3. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he believes he was undiagnosed for PTSD at the time of his separation. He was separated in 2007 and was diagnosed with anxiety and major depressive disorder in 2011 by the VA, which was then properly diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol abuse in early remission. He also had a honorable discharge in the year of 2006. He did not know how to deal with his problems as a young Soldier in the Army. Since then he has gone through cognitive processing therapy for PTSD, earned his bachelors of science in Criminal Justice, and Business Administration. He has also graduated from the basic police officer training course for the USAF. He was properly diagnosed with PTSD from his service in Iraq and is now asking that the board look into the way his discharge was handled and look for a misclassification, or an inequitable military 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), the applicant had extensive involvement with FAP as an offender and removal from treatment due to ongoing inappropriate behaviors, comments, etc. The applicant voiced a desire to be separated, frustrated about the Army's involvement in his personal life, and stated he purposefully failed ASAP to be separated. The applicant was initially service connected for Depression, later changed to PTSD. The applicant is 50% service connected for PTSD. Yet documents do not clarify the PTSD and the applicant has been successfully employed in high stress and demanding jobs; there is no impairment. While liberal consideration was applied, the lack of clarification about the PTSD, PTSD not being the service connected condition at discharge, applicant's expressed desire to be separated to remove the Army from his personal life, and documented dishonorable acts, an upgrade is not recommended. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200 / Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 October 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: the applicant was referred to the Community Counseling Center (CCC) on 21 March as the result of an alcohol related domestic disturbance. He was evaluated on 26 April and met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse. There were two Rehabilitation Team Meetings (RTM) scheduled to enroll him with his chain of command, on 14 May 2007 and on 12 June 2007 that were not kept. On 31 July 2007, he referred himself back into the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program citing that he had continued to abuse alcohol as well as cannabis. He was evaluated on 1 August 2007 and found to meet DSM IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence and cannabis dependence. On 15 August 2007, he was enrolled in ASAP to attend level 1 outpatient treatment. He attended one individual and four group counseling sessions over a period of 45 days. On 25 September 2007, he was declared a rehabilitation failure. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions); the reason for this recommendation was for the following: On or about 6 April 2006, the applicant unlawfully struck Private McCrory on the head with a rock; on or about 24 February 2007, he disobeyed a lawful command to have no contact with P.H.; and on or about 21 April 2007, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 October 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 December 2006 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 4 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 June 2005 to 7 December 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (24 March 2006 to 30 July 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 20 March 2007, for disobeying a lawful command from CPT M.M.G., to not have any contact with P.H., willfully disobey the same between 24 February 2007 and 25 February 2007. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $182.00 (forfeiture of $175.00 suspended), extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days (suspended). No contact order dated 27 February 2007. Military Police Report, dated 27 March 2007, which indicate the applicant was the subject of investigation for spouse abuse-civilian female victim, harassment 2nd degree, spouse abuse- military male victim, and assault. Military Police Report, dated 8 September 2007, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for simple assault and domestic disturbance. Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (CRC) Notification, dated 27 September 2007, which indicates the applicant admitted he had been drinking the night before and drinks regularly. Synopsis of Rehabilitation Efforts for applicant, dated 28 September 2007, from E.E.M., MS, LPC, CASAC, CADC, Clinical Director. Counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; letter of support; letter from the US Customs and Boarder Protection; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning the applicant being awarded 50 service connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder with alcohol abuse in early remission (previously anxiety disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder); Associate of Arts and Bachelor of Science certificates; several training certificates; from the Law Enforcement Training Center; medical progress notes; civilian rating of record; honorable discharge certificate; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant's overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JPD" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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, a change of his narrative reason for discharge to secretarial authority, and a change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code to a 2 or 3. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates that on 25 September 2007, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure in the Substance Abuse Program. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. As a result of the applicant's actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems. 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is "Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure," and the separation code is "JPD." 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 appropriate RE code is 4. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. It should be noted; the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 3. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure. Soldiers processed for alcohol rehabilitation failure will be assigned an SPD Code of JPD and an RE Code of 4. In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, block 27, reentry code should be change to 4, as approved by the separation authority. The applicant seeks relief contending that he believes he was undiagnosed for PTSD at the time of his separation. He was separated in 2007 and was diagnosed with anxiety and major depressive disorder in 2011 by the VA, which was then properly diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol abuse in early remission. He also had an honorable discharge in the year of 2006. He did not know how to deal with his problems as a young Soldier in the Army. Since then he has gone through cognitive processing therapy for PTSD, earned his bachelors of science in Criminal Justice, and Business Administration. He has also graduated from the basic police officer training course for the USAF. He was properly diagnosed with PTSD from his service in Iraq and is now asking that the board look into the way his discharge was handled and look for a misclassification, or an inequitable military discharge. The applicant's contentions were noted; and the applicant is to commended on his post-service accomplishment. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time of discharge. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 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 AR20190009683 3