1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 June 2019 b. Date Received: 31 July 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of the infractions that led his discharge, he was suffering from psychological conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, compounded by addiction to pain medication prescribed by the Army treat to injuries incurred while conduction airborne operations. These conditions were major contributing factors in the misconduct that led to the applicant's discharge. The applicant's psychiatric conditions began during his deployment to 2008-2009 deployment to Iraq. During said deployment, the applicant was actively involved in combat operations. His company suffered causalities, including their medic, who was mortally wounded by a roadside Improvised Explosive Device. The applicant exhibited significant changes in behavior during his mid-deployment R&R leave. During his leave, the applicant slept very little, and his interactions with his family ranged from absent to confrontational. This marked a dramatic departure from their relationship prior to his deployment, as he was very close with his family prior to enlisting. While on leave, he was constantly on alert, on guard, and agitated; all classic symptoms of PTSD. After several tense interactions with his family, the applicant left his family home and began to drink heavily, spending over $8000 of his save money on alcohol. He had indicated to his family that all he wanted to do was to return to his unit. When his leave ended, the applicant rejoined his unit without saying goodbye to his family, which, according to this mother, was atypical. Although the applicant completed his deployment without any disciplinary incident, his return to garrison was problematic. Once out of the combat zone, the applicant had a number of disciplinary problems. At the time, the applicant was a Specialist being groomed for the Sergeant promotion board, as well as Fort Bragg's Pre-Ranger Course, the notoriously difficult prerequisite for the Army's Ranger School. Despite his atypical behavior and clear symptoms of a psychological condition, the applicant was not referred to a medical board, but rather separated from the military less than three months before his scheduled ETS. Upon discharge from the military, the applicant applied for, and was awarded, VA Disability Compensation for injuries to his knee and back, and most notably, for PTSD. He was initially awarded 50 percent disability for his PTSD, but his rating was eventually increased to 70 percent. He was also awarded an additional 50 percent disability due to sleep apnea, secondary to PTSD. He was wrongly denied secondary service connection to substance abuse disorder, however, based on the attached medical records and literature, he has a viable appeal pending. He is also currently pending an appeal for 100 percent disability based on his PTSD, as he has had multiple inpatient stays for treatment. The applicant has been unemployed for a number of years, however, he seeks to return to employment once he is able to do so. The applicant's PTSD and Sleep Apnea often keep him awake for days at a time. He is currently actively treating his PTSD and Substance Abuse through the VA, and over the past six years, has cumulatively spent approximately 11 months in various in-patient treatment settings. Even now, he continues with intensive outpatient services through the VA. Current guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense ("Under Secretary") recognizes that service members like the applicant were inadvertently left behind. The applicant did not receive an equitable review of his discharge under the current Under Secretary's guidance when he left the military. The Under Secretary made clear that all veterans who suffered from undiagnosed "invisible" mental health conditions, including PTSD and TBI are entitled to an equitable review of the service member's discharge. The applicant's discharge was improper because he was not screened for potential mental health conditions, to include his now diagnosed PTSD prior to the discharge despite a recent deployment. The applicant's discharge was inequitable because he was not adequately screened to ensure that the causal nexus between the misconduct and his diagnosed mental health conditions were considered during the discharge process. Upgrading the applicant's discharge will allow him to take advantage of certain educational benefits. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. 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 Dependence; Amphetamine Dependence; Cannabis Dependence; Opioid Dependence. The applicant is 100% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder; Alcohol Abuse; Opioid Dependence, in remission; Alcohol Dependence, in remission; Polysubstance Dependence; Bipolar Disorder. 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 16 September 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 March 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The Soldier fails to comply with the basic standards set forth by Army regulation. Rehabilitation would not produce a quality Soldier. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 February 2008 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 3 years, 1 month, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 December 2008 - 17 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 31 March 2010, for being AWOL (between 15 and 18 March 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 11 June 2010, for willfully disobeying a lawful order (8 March 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $463 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. All punishment was suspended. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (7 September 2010); and, violated a lawful general regulation, by traveling outside the 100 mile radius without a n approved mileage pass (6 September 2010). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Failure to Report (FTR)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 11 January 2011; From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 11 January 2011; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 11 February 2011; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 1 March 2011. FG Article 15, dated 24 March 2011, for being AWOL (between 11 January and 1 March 2011). The document did not reflect any imposed punishment. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 48 days (AWOL, 11 January 2011 - 28 February 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 7 March 2011, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Poly substance abuse. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 22 December 2015, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD to include bipolar disorder, anxiety and mood disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD form 293, with allied legal brief; personal statement; three VA Rating Decisions; Claims and Pension Exam records. 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, through counsel, 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 that he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD and provided a third party letter to support his change in behavior. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record reflects that on 7 March 2011, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with Poly substance abuse. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends he did not receive an equitable review of his case based on current standards. However, 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 claims the offenses that caused his discharge were minor in nature. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 16 September 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). 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 AR20190011915 7