1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 January 2019 b. Date Received: 28 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he earned numerous awards and decorations. He was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI from some blast he suffered. He was threatened by a NCO on numerous occasions. He went through his chain of command and for months nothing was done about it. He began going AWOL to avoid what was going on and was placed in pretrial confinement. He was experiencing mental health issues due to the threats, nightmares and sleep. He was treated unfair and unjust; and he believes that his mental status played a major role in his decisions. In a records review conducted on 14 May 2021, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, TBI, PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. (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: 11 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: No (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 January 2009 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 4 years, 11 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 February 2007 to 8 January 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 December 2007 to 15 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 68 days: 29 September 2011 to 12 October 2011, 16 November 2011 to 11 December 2011, 14 December 2011 to 19 December 2011 and 5 March 2012 to 27 March 2012; after careful review of the available record, the category of lost time could not be determined. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Service-Connected Disabilities, dated 24 March 2021, revealed the applicant was service-connected for PTSD and granted an evaluation of 70 percent disabling. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Service-Connected Disabilities (two page); DD Form 214; VA Summary of Benefits (two pages); and two Discharge Orders 094-0010 (four pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember'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) 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 applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's digital signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JKQ (i.e., misconduct (serious offense)) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The applicant contends he was threatened by a NCO on numerous occasions and reported it through his chain of command, but nothing was done and began going AWOL to avoid the threats. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI from some blast he suffered. He was experiencing mental health issues due to the threats, nightmares and sleep. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD or TBI diagnosis. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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. The ADRB's Medical Advisor, a voting member of the Board, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA medical records, and found that the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD which is potentially a mitigating condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The VA determined the applicant's condition is service connected. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The applicant's record indicates multiple AWOL instances. The ADRB found that these instances of AWOL contributed to the characterization of the applicant's discharge, and the ADRB found that PTSD mitigates the offense of AWOL. It is associated with avoidant behaviors, and there is a nexus between the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and multiple periods of AWOL. However, the applicant's medical records also included reports of two Articles 15, traffic tickets, several incidents of civilian jail time, including for harassment, as well as an instance of IPV when the applicant assaulted his girlfriend while he was drinking shortly before discharge. The ADRB found that PTSD does not mitigate incidents of harassment or assault of an intimate partner, because PTSD does not prevent an individual from understanding the difference between right and wrong. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Partially. The ADRB found that PTSD outweighs the applicant's incidents of AWOL, but not his other misconduct of assault, traffic tickets, and harassment. Specifically, an individual suffering from PTSD could be expected to exhibit avoidant behaviors, such as AWOL or FTR. However, PTSD does not prevent a person from understanding the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, the applicant should have understood that assaulting his girlfriend, harassing behavior, and traffic violations were wrong. The Board considered all the evidence presented in the applicant's medical and service record as well as the evidence and statements submitted by the applicant, and decided that despite the fact that the applicant's AWOL incidents were mitigated by his diagnosis of PTSD, the other misconduct remaining after the AWOL rendered the applicant's military record satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. b. Responses to Contentions. (1) The applicant contends he was threatened by a NCO on numerous occasions and reported it through his chain of command, but nothing was done and began going AWOL to avoid the threats. The ADRB considered that this may have been related to the incidents of AWOL, and, given that the applicant's diagnosis of AWOL is mitigated by PTSD, the Board found this weighed in favor of the partial discharge upgrade. (2) The contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI from some blast he suffered. The ADRB found clear evidence within the medical record that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, and weighed that heavily in their decision to upgrade the applicant to a General discharge. However, the Board found that the remainder of the applicant's misconduct, including assault, traffic tickets, and harassment, rendered the overall quality of the applicant's service less than fully honorable. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. However, the ADRB found that the applicant's misconduct of assault, traffic tickets, and harassment resulting in jail time rendered his overall service less than fully honorable, and therefore only decided to upgrade to a General discharge. c. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service was inequitable based on the VA diagnosis of PTSD. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because of the VA diagnosis of service connected PTSD (2) The board voted to not change the reason, serious offense (JKQ), due to the other misconduct documented in the applicant's DOD health record. (3) The RE code will not change because the reason 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 IPV - Intimate Partner Violence 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 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 AR20190002088 1