1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 October 2017 b. Date Received: 31 October 2017 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, a narrative reason change and a Reentry Code (RE). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, PTSD was a likely contributing factor to his misconduct. The Applicant was the victim and not the perpetrator. The applicant's quality of service warrant an honorable characterization of service. The Army failed to comply with 10 USC 1177. At the time of his separation in 2014, the applicant was on his sixth re-enlistment and had served overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Applicant had numerous combat experiences, but the one that he identifies as most traumatic involved an enemy attack on a night convoy. Applicant's record of service prior to the incident that led to his separation was excellent. Applicant began having mental health difficulties following his first deployment to Iraq. He was first recognized as potentially suffering from PTSD in February 2009. On 17 April 2014, the applicant was involved another incident of domestic violence. It was this incident that led to applicant's separation from the Army. The Army's Family Advocacy Review Committee determined that the applicant was the victim in the 17 April 2014 domestic violence incident. The applicant's company commander initiated proceedings to administratively separate him with an other than honorable characterization of service on 17 June 2014. The basis of the proposed separation was "commission of a serious offense" based upon applicant having unlawfully struck, choked, and pushed his wife. He states, the applicant's actions were not unlawful if he was the victim. Since his separation, he has been assigned a 70 percent rating for PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs retroactive to his date of separation. He states, that the applicant's separation package stated that a report of mental status examination was attached, but what was likely included was the 2013 mental status exam that found the applicant to have sub-clinical PTSD symptomology. On 6 May 2014, the Army medicine stated the applicant was "currently diagnosed with PTSD and symptoms meeting criteria are well documented." This was more than a month prior to the initiation of separation. Notably, the applicant's company commander did not circle the appropriate language to inform the separation authority that applicant was currently suffering from PTSD. His command failed to consider whether the applicant suffered from PTSD that mitigated his misconduct. It also failed to require a medical report on whether his PTSD likely contributed to the misconduct. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time including the applicant's case files, AHLTA and JLV. AHLTA notes indicate applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while on active duty. He was seen in 2008 while deployed for symptoms of PTSD. During this visit, he reported he had been involved in multiple critical incidents-his job involved clearing combat routes. He had been involved in numerous firefights, had seen others get injured or killed and had lost 3 friends due to combat. Review of AHLTA indicates that his involvement with FAP (for domestic violence) began after his first deployment to Iraq. In Feb 2009, he was officially diagnosed with PTSD by psychiatry. It was noted he had chronic problems with irritability and poor impulse control. In May 2013, he was involved in another domestic violence incident which involved drinking. Applicant self-referred to ASAP. June 2014 psychiatric evaluation indicated applicant grew up in a very physically abusive environment (was hit with belt, baseball bat by stepfather). While on active duty, applicant participated in Anger Management group, marital counseling and ASAP treatment. He also received treatment for PTSD-Cognitive Processing Therapy, psychotherapy, medication therapy. VA notes indicate applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD. After reviewing the available documentation, it is the opinion of the Agency psychiatrist that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD does not mitigate the applicant's repetitive pattern of domestic violence. Such a pattern of domestic violence is not a known symptom of any major mental health disorder. However, this behavior, while not a symptom of a major mental disorder, is consistent with a personality organization that permits such aggressive behaviors. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. (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-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 17 April 2014, he unlawfully struck, choked, and pushed SPC W, his wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 June 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 23 June 2014, 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: On 8 July 2014, the separation authority approved the applicant's conditional waiver and directed his discharge. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 November 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 74D10 L3, Chemical Operations Specialist / 10 years, 6 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 January 2004 - 30 January 2006 / HD RA, 31 January 2006 - 31 January 2008 / HD RA, 1 February 2008 - 14 May 2008 / HD RA, 15 May 2008 - 9 December 2009 / HD RA, 10 December 2009 - 22 November 2010 / HD RA, 23 November 2010 - 25 November 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (6 May 2007 - 5 July 2008; 15 April 2012 - 5 January 2013); Iraq (17 September 2005 - 18 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-5, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2012 - 31 January 2013 / Fully Capable 1 February 2013 - 31 January 2014 / Fully Capable 31 January 2014 - 8 May 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 26 June 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Civil Charge: Assault 4th Degree (Domestic Violence) (Alcohol) (Off Post). FG Article 15, dated 8 May 2014, for unlawfully striking, choking and pushing SPC W (17 April 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,213 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (CRC) Incident Determination, dated 12 June 2014, reflects the CRC met on 3 June 2014, to review incident 20140973. The allegation was adult physical abuse. The applicant was identified as the sponsor-victim. The CRC determined the incident met criteria for physical abuse and will enter the determination into a Department of Defense Central Registry database. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 May 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for 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 a Fitness for Duty (Psychiatric evaluation); PTSD (Axis I). Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 25 June 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 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. 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). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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, a narrative reason change and a Reentry Code (RE). 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because he was diagnosed with PTSD. 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 requests an RE code change consistent with an honorable discharge. The service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. There is no basis upon which to grant any other reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends he was the victim in the incident which served as the basis for his discharge. He states his PTSD was not considered during the separation proceedings as required by law. 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 contends he has been rated 70 percent disability for PTSD, and this condition affected his behavior. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service 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 record shows that on 6 May 2014, 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 that he had good service which included a three 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. Notwithstanding the administrative error, based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes 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 to SPD / Change RE code to 3 f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20170018233 4