1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 June 2019 b. Date Received: 29 July 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served nearly 14 years in the military and lost four children upon returning from deployments. The applicant was involved in a series of depression/situational alcohol abuse incidents, with the last ending in a fourth DUI accident. Due to the applicant's high level of execution, the medical/treatment remedy at the command level and the Army hospital was missed. Treating the symptoms and not the true problem, which was a loss of life in immediate family as a parent. The big mistake, was no grief counseling as the applicant was quickly moved through any process and misdiagnosed. This was evident in the separation board and addressed by Dr. H. S. The applicant states, enlisted once and completed the term and re-enlisted four times and served honorably each time. Losing children while away on deployment and then returning, put the applicant in a challenge, which could have never been able to regain normalcy until that was addressed. This was the error versus the perceived outward perception of the applicant as a Solider. The applicant was on top all the time versus what happened very quickly near the end of the term. The applicant was a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer and if accurately diagnosed, it would have most likely prevented multiple occurrences and would have enabled future value to veterans in need of support. The applicant states, in pursuit of Doctorate degree after having completed MBA. The applicant has a great opportunity to act as an advisor and support and mentor veterans for the Manatee County Drug Court with the VA and ongoing support. However, to do so, needs to have an honorable 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), notes AHLTA records contain no content regarding the applicant due to fact AHLTA was not in use during applicant's time in service. No hard copy military medical records were provided for review. VA medical records indicate that they contain no content regarding the applicant. No civilian medical documentation was provided for review. Based on the lack of relevant medical information, no decision regarding medical mitigation can be made. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. In summary, the separation was proper and equitable. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 August 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 July 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 November 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had three DUI convictions and a fourth DUI charge, for which was awaiting trial. For the most recent DUI charge, he injured four innocent passengers in another vehicle. In addition to his DUIs, he had been arrested on post for resisting arrest, assaulting a military police officer, and being drunk and disorderly. The commander did not believe that any other action could be deemed appropriate. The applicant's conduct was unacceptable and contrary to the good order and discipline required of a soldier in the U.S. Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 November 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 18 November 2003, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The record is void of the separation authority's decision regarding the applicant's conditional waiver, however, evidence of the record reflects that on 8 April 2004, an administrative separation board convened, and found the applicant's misconduct was supported by preponderance of evidence. The Board recommended separation from service with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 December 1999 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / Associate's Degree / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 19D1S, D3 Calvary Scout / 14 years, 2 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 April 1990 - 21 May 1992 / HD RA, 22 May 1992 - 18 January 1994 / HD RA, 19 January 1994 - 7 June 1995 / HD RA, 8 June 1995 - 16 October 1996 / HD RA, 17 October 1996 - 9 December 1999 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-6, AGCM-3, KDSM, ASUA, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, HSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, g. Performance Ratings: October 1999 - June 2000 / Among The Best July 2000 - March 2001 / Among The Best April 2001 - March 2002 / Fully Capable April 2002 - January 2003 / Among The Best February 2003 - January 2004 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Staff Action (memo), dated 16 June 2004, reflects the applicant was involved in a vehicle accident in Jefferson County on 5 October 2003, which caused severe damage to the other driver's vehicle and injuries to the four occupants. The applicant was found to be manifested under the influence of alcohol as apparent by strong odor of alcohol on his breath, blood shot eyes, and slow/slurred speech. He was charged with driving under the influence (DUI). Further, he was found to be operating his vehicle on a suspended license for three prior DUIs and is currently pending trial for fourth DUI. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Orders 155-2; Congratulatory Letter; three character letters; two DA Forms 1059; six DA Forms 2166-7; two DA Forms 2166-8; partial administrative separation board proceedings. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is pursuing his Doctorate degree after having completed his MBA. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. 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 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 applicant contends he was involved in a series of depression and situational alcohol abuse incidents, which his command did not recognize and appropriate medical treatment was not afforded. However, the service record contains no evidence of a depression/alcohol abuse disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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 applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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 regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that he lost four children post deployment, which affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 12 August 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 AR20190010422 1