1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 August 2018 b. Date Received: 24 September 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is Under Other Than Honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to Honorable and a narrative reason for Secretarial Authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety. He was diagnosed for the first time with PTSD and enrolled in the PTSD treatment program. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), diagnosed him with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder. He has been sober since 2017. He started drinking to mitigate his symptoms. He was homeless for ten months. He had more than 11 years of exemplary service, including three overseas deployments. In a records review conducted on 14 May 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service to include combat service, post service accomplishments, prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General under honorable conditions. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 18 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant breached the peace of his neighborhood by engaging in a verbal altercation with his wife in his residence while intoxicated. During the altercation, his wife locked herself in her bedroom and called Military Police. While Military Police traveled to the location, he kicked down the door to the bedroom, causing damage to government property (18 August 2014); After being given a military protective order from his commander, requiring him to remain at least 100 feet from his wife, he violated the terms of that military protective order by returning to his residence, where his wife was located (18 August 2014); He drove a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, on a public roadway, while impaired. On the same night, he battered a police officer while he was being processed for arrest at the police station (1 April 2014); and, The following misconduct was considered for separation, but not for characterization of discharge if separation was warranted under provisions of paragraphs 1-15 and 3-5 of AR 600-235. he drove a motor vehicle on a public roadway while impaired (6 November 2012); he drove a motor vehicle on a public roadway, without a valid license, and while impaired. His blood alcohol content was measured by police at 0. 125 (5 August 2011); he committed an assault when fighting in public (27 May 2011); and he drove a vehicle on a public roadway while intoxicated, ticket number C0022854 (10 July 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 8 October 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 4 November 2014, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 36 / AA Degree / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 16 years, 11 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 March 1998 to 31 May 2000 / HD RA, 1 June 2000 to 6 June 2002 / HD RA, 7 June 2002 to 10 July 2006 / HD RA, 11 July 2006 to 12 July 2007 / HD RA, 13 July 2007 to 10 October 2007 / HD RA, 11 October 2007 to 19 March 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / SWA / Kuwait / 17 March 2002 to 28 August 2002 / Iraq x2, 9 January 2003 to 22 July 2003 and 17 January 2005 to 18 January 2006 f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-6, AGCM-5, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, CAB, PUC, NMCAM g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2013 to 10 December 2013 / Among The Best 11 December 2013 to 10 December 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 May 2014, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for driving while intoxicated, battery of a police officer and resisting arrest. On 1 April 2014, a Vernon Parish Police Officer arrested the applicant for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, battery of a police officer, resisting arrest and unsafe lane usage. He refused a breathalyzer. Military Protective Order, dated 18 August 2014, the applicant's unit commander ordered him to remain 100 feet away from his spouse. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Record, dated 24 September 2009, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and prescribed medication. Medical Record, dated 8 June 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. Medical Record, dated 5 August 2011, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. Aurora Behavioral Health Care Document / San Diego, dated 28 October 2011, shows that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of alcohol dependence and PTSD and Axis IV, psychological stressor, severe. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. Aurora Behavioral Health Care Document / San Diego, dated 2 November 2011, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of PTSD, alcohol dependence and ongoing bereavement. Report of Medical Examination, dated 27 May 2014, relates the applicant was diagnosed with depression and obstructive sleep apnea. He was treated for suicidal ideation. Report of Medical Assessment, dated 27 May 2014, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 June 2014, indicates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. Vermillion Behavioral Health Systems Document, dated 23 December 2014, indicates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD and alcohol dependency. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 December 2014, reflects the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder, PTSD and alcohol dependence. VA Consult Requests, dated 19 January 2017, reflects, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, with delayed expression, major depressive disorder, with mixed features, recurrent, moderate, alcohol use disorder, severe and parent-child relational problem. Massachusetts General Hospital Medical Documents, dated 10 November 2019, indicates diagnosis of alcohol dependence in remission, chronic PTSD, depression and generalized anxiety disorder. He was previously prescribed medications for these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages), dated 11 September 2020; Attorney's Responsibility Letter (two pages); Attorney's Brief in Support of Application (22 pages); Exhibit 1, DD Form 214; Exhibit 2, Personal Statement; Exhibit 3, Enlisted Record Brief; Exhibit 4, NCO Evaluation Reports; Exhibit 5, Army Medical Records; Exhibit 6, Aurora Behavioral Health Care Records; Exhibit 7, Letter of Reprimand; Exhibit 8, Military Protective Order; Exhibit 9, Memorandum Recommending Separation Under AR 635-200, Chapter 14; Exhibit 10, Report of Administrative Separation Board; Exhibit 11, Vermillion Behavioral Health Systems Records; Exhibit 12, Veterans Administration Medical Records; Exhibit 13, Massachusetts General Medical Records; Exhibit 14, Letter Confirming Participation in Wounded Warrior Project Talk Program; and Exhibit 15, Character References. DD Form 293 (two pages), dated 29 August 2018; Applicant's Statement (four pages); DD Form 214 (two pages); and two Support Statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant through counsel states participated in the VA' s PTSD Recovery and Alcohol Dependence Programs in 2016 and 2017. He returned to school and received an Associates of Science degree in computer technology from East Coast Polytechnic College. He is employed full time with a law firm in Richmond, Virginia, as an information technology (IT) administrator. He participates regularly in the Wounded Warriors Project Talk Program, and last fall he attended the two-week Home Base Intensive Clinical Program at Massachusetts General Hospital for veterans with PTSD. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Service member discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Service member's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. e. 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). f. 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The separation packet indicates applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and prescribed medication. The applicant contends he was diagnosed for the first time with PTSD and enrolled in the PTSD treatment program. The record of evidence, Aurora Behavioral Health Care Document / San Diego, shows that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of alcohol dependence and PTSD and Axis IV, psychological stressor, severe. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. The applicant contends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), diagnosed him with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder. The record of evidence, VA Consult Requests, reflects, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, with delayed expression, major depressive disorder, with mixed features, recurrent, moderate, alcohol use disorder, severe and parent-child relational problem. The applicant contends he started drinking to mitigate his symptoms and has been sober since 2017. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 he was homeless for ten months. Eligibility for housing supportive program benefits for Veterans does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. All veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant contends he had more than 11 years of exemplary service, including three overseas deployments. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service were considered. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) Medical documentation in AHLTA and VA documentation indicated that the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with anxiety for alcohol dependency and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) Medical records reviewed by the ADRB's Medical Advisor, a voting member of the Board, indicate the applicant was seen by psychiatry for evaluation and treatment of his occurring disorders while in Service and was also admitted to an inpatient PTSD/alcohol rehab program. Later, the VA diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. However, given that these diagnoses were not made until the applicant was seeing the VA, the ADRB determined that these diagnoses were not service connected, and thus not applicable to the misconduct that led to discharge. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (PARTIALLY) The ADRB applied liberal consideration, and concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that the applicant's PTSD mitigates the misconduct of DUI, and the racist discrimination he experienced mitigates his belligerence with the police officer. Individuals diagnosed with PTSD are well known to use alcohol or other drugs to self-medicate their PTSD symptoms. However, the ADRB does not find that the PTSD or OBH conditions mitigates the applicant's fighting in public, violation of a protective order, or breaking down a locked door and causing damage to government property. Specifically, PTSD might cause temporary lapses in judgement, but the ADRB found that the applicant had ample time as he traveled from the barracks to the house where his spouse was to recognize that he was violating a direct order. Further, the ADRB does not find that violence directed at his spouse and government property is mitigated by PTSD, because neither a spouse nor a home would be expected to trigger memories that would cause the fight or flight reactions associated with PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (PARTIALLY) The ADRB found that the applicant's PTSD mitigates the multiple DUIs; however, violation of the MPO and damaging the government property is not mitigated. Specifically, PTSD might cause temporary lapses in judgement, but the ADRB found that the applicant had ample time as he traveled from the barracks to his spouse's location to recognize that he was violating a direct order. Further, the ADRB does not find that violence directed at his spouse and government property is mitigated by PTSD, because neither a spouse nor a home would be expected to trigger memories that would cause the fight or flight reactions associated with PTSD. While applying liberal consideration, the Board found that the PTSD was far outweighed by the severity of the offenses of reckless driving and fighting in public, behaviors that could have resulted in injury or death to others. b. Responses to contentions: (1) The applicant contends he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety. The ADRB's Medical Advisor reviewed medical documentation in the DOD and VA health records that indicated that the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with anxiety for alcohol dependency. The ADRB considered this, but decided that this OBH diagnosis is not mitigating for any of the applicant's misconduct. Specifically, Adjustment Disorder is typically a short-term issue that resolves after the diagnosed individual settles into new circumstances. (2) The applicant contends he was diagnosed for the first time with PTSD and enrolled in the PTSD treatment program. The ADRB's Medical Advisor reviewed medical documentation in DOD health records indicating the applicant was seen by psychiatry for evaluation and treatment of his occurring disorders while in Service and was also admitted to an inpatient PTSD/alcohol rehab program. The ADRB found that this condition was mitigating for the misconduct DUI. (3) The applicant contends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), diagnosed him with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed the applicant's VA medical record, which revealed the VA has diagnosed the applicant with Alcohol Dependence; Generalized Anxiety Disorder; homelessness; Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate; PTSD. In particular, the ADRB found that the applicant's PTSD was mitigating for the misconduct of DUI. However, the diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder did not appear in the applicant's DOD health record. Accordingly, the Board decided that these later diagnoses were not service-connected, and therefore not mitigating for the misconduct that led to discharge. (4) The applicant contends he started drinking to mitigate his symptoms and has been sober since 2017. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed VA medical documentation revealing the VA has diagnosed applicant with Alcohol Dependence and the Board's Medical Advisor opined there is an association between PTSD and the use of alcohol to self-medicate symptoms. The ADRB concurred with this opine, and decided that the PTSD mitigates the applicant's DUIs. (5) The applicant contends he was homeless for ten months. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed VA medical records documenting applicant's homelessness, and the ADRB considered this in their deliberations. (6) The applicant contends he had more than 11 years of exemplary service, including three overseas deployments. 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. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service to include combat service, post service accomplishments, prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General under honorable conditions. The ADRB elected not to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable because the Board decided that, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's misconduct of violating a protective order and breaking down a locked door and causing damage to government property were not mitigated or outweighed by the PTSD diagnosis. An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. The ADRB decided that the applicant's unmitigated misconduct was severe enough that it rendered his overall service less than fully honorable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because of the diagnosed BH condition, PTSD, partially mitigating reason for discharge. (2) The board voted not to change the narrative reason because of misconduct that was not mitigated such as fighting in public, violating a protective order, or breaking down a door and causing damage to government property. (3) Because the narrative reason was not changed, the SPD/RE code will not change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH(I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20180012758 1