1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 September 2019 b. Date Received: 24 September 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he believes he merits an upgrade because he had just redeployed from Afghanistan. An NCO came into the applicant's room and yelled at him while the applicant was on the phone with his mother and the applicant snapped, but never touched the NCO, he just yelled back at him. The applicant did not curse at the NCO because the applicant's mother was on the phone. Afterwards, the applicant was demoted, did community service, was charged with disrespect to a NCO and ended up being discharged due to this one incident. The applicant states, he served honorably and honestly as a good Soldier during his entire enlistment. Due to his PTSD and anger issues upon returning from war in Afghanistan, he verbally was not as calm as normal with authoritative figures. The applicant had no other issues during his deployment or after he returned. He followed the orders and commands from higher ups during his entire enlistment. The applicant had just graduated top of the class from the Air Assault Course and was just trying to talk to his mother without interruptions. The applicant believes he was made an example of for verbally responding inappropriately to an NCO in one conversation, which escalated. Now he is very aware of his PTSD was the reason why he snapped verbally at that moment and led him to loosing rank and not receiving a honorable discharge. The applicant's goal is to continue to be in college and receive a Bachelor's Degree in Biomedical Sciences using the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Currently being on the Vocational Rehabilitation plan with the VA, which he is grateful for the $631 monthly payment, but it is very tough to survive on while in SF and going to college full time. The GI Bill would really help him to focus on college and his VA appointments without being under financial stress. The applicant states, he is not homeless, but he reached out to the VA and Vet Center and VSO for help with PTSD, benefits, claims, education, housing, healthcare. Through this combination of help from the VA, he became housed, is in college on the Vocational Rehabilitation plan at City College of SF with the VA, and now has a service dog, which contributes greatly to continuing to live a successful, productive life. An upgrade would allow him to receive the GI Bill, which he worked, fought and paid into while on active duty. 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 Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. 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 23 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, post service accomplishments, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (service-connected 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: 26 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 November 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was cited for Driving Under the Influence on 5 August 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 November 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 December 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2010, 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15G10, Aircraft Structural Repairer / 2 years, 8 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 February 2011 - 7 October 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: BAB, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 30 August 2012, for disrespectful language towards SFC K.G., by saying "asshole"; "I don't recognized your paper rank or your authority"; and, "this is some racist bullshit"; (5 August 2012); for disrespectful language toward SSG L. S., by saying "mother fucker" (5 August 2012); for disrespectful deportment toward SFC K. G., by refusing to hang-up his phone and refusing to go to parade rest when told to do so (5 August 2012); for wrongfully violating a lawful general regulation by consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 years (5 August 2012); and, for making a false official statements to SFC K.G., that "I was not drinking" and "I was in SPC D.'s room all night" (5 August 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months ($745 suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, oral reprimand. Military Police Report, dated 5 August 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Reckless Operation of Motor Vehicle (On Post); Failure to Obey Lawful Order or Written Regulation (underage consumption) (On Post); No Lights During a Time of Darkness (On Post); Drunken Driving (On Post). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 10 June 2019, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for PTSD with Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol use Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Vet Center letter; three VA Rating Decisions; two VA Benefits decision letters; DA Form 3444-2; Certification Letter; Orders 341-1011; medical records; Orders 0102010. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is in college on a Vocational Rehabilitation plan. 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 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 he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD with Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol use Disorder. 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 23 October 2012, 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. 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 was made an example of because of one incident where he responded inappropriately to an NCO. 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. Further, the specific reason for the applicant's discharge was Driving Under the Influence. 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 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 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 23 September 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, post service accomplishments, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (service-connected 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 AR20190012633 6