1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 July 2019 b. Date Received: 29 August 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, his discharge was a result of his severe PTSD, which was diagnosed during his separation, but was not considered. The applicant currently receives 70 percent disability from the VA for his PTSD, which is apart from his spinal injuries and loss of hearing in the right ear. The applicant only recently learned he could apply for an upgrade based on the fact his separation was a result of PTSD. The applicant states, he was an outstanding Soldier with high recommendations for promotion and regard from his fellow Soldiers. The applicant was an outstanding medic for many years and always did a great job with PT, weapons Training, mentoring Soldiers and taking pride in the mission and his unit. The applicant was stop-loss in Iraq and decided to reenlist there for five more years. During his second contract he was promoted to sergeant and then staff sergeant, while he was in the 82nd. The applicant states, he deployed to Afghanistan attached to 3rd group Special Forces and he was excited and took the mission as an opportunity for his unit to show its worth. He was the only medic in his assigned area and his unit was struck by large IEDs continuously. During one IED, the applicant was injured, but could not tell anyone because the applicant did not want to be removed from his Soldiers that were under his care, which led to him taking pain meds to continue the mission. The applicant knows he was wrong and is one of the greatest regrets of his life. During that time, his unit was getting hit almost every time they went out and the applicant began to think he was not making it home alive. The applicant states, he let the suck monster get in his head and it was not until one month before his ETS, when he finally asked for help. The applicant was subsequently chaptered out, losing all he had worked for and disgracing himself, the service, and his family. The applicant was diagnosed with severe PTSD from the mental health, while the 82nd chaptered him out. Prior to this, his NCOERs all stated promote ahead of peers, and he had countless character letters from Soldiers enlisted and commissioned who sang his praises for his hard work and courage on the "X". The applicant would like one chance to redeem his name and be able to hold his head up high once more. The applicant knows what he did was wrong, but it does not change his love for the service, the Soldiers, or the platoon that he was charged with the welfare of. 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 ADHD; Opioid Dependence; Nicotine Dependence; Marijuana Dependence. The applicant is 70% service- connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (in-service diagnosis of OBH, and service-connected PTSD), and prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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: 15 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 31 January 2012, he received a Field Grade Article 15, for disobeying a commissioned officer, violating General Order Number 1B, dereliction of duty, and making a false official statement. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 8 May 2012, 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. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 November 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 68W2P, Health Care Specialist / 6 years, 10 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 August 2005 - 4 November 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 June 2011 - 1 June 2012); Iraq (22 August 2006 - 8 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, JSCM, ARCOM-3, AAM, NATOMDL, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASROSR-3, CMB, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 18 January 2009 - 17 January 2010 / Fully Capable 18 January 2010 - 10 November 2010 / Fully Capable 11 November 2010 - 10 November 2011 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 31 January 2012, for willfully disobeyed a lawful order to turn-in all controlled substances in his possession (between 1 and 20 January 2012); violated a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia (19 January 2012); willfully disobeyed a lawful order by having unauthorized possession of controlled substances (19 January 2012); and, for make a false official statement by stating "I cannot find the morphine auto injectors. I most likely threw them away," (20 January 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,331 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and, restriction for 45 days (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 29 July 2019, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, chronic. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA letter. 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 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. Also, his command did not consider his PTSD, when determining his characterization of service. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. 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 that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 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 11 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, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (in-service diagnosis of OBH, and service-connected PTSD), and prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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 AR20190013469 5