1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 February 2019 b. Date Received: 11 February 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant requests to paid leave days that he was entitled to and which he earned. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there are errors in his separation packet, which includes a DWI, which he has never had in his life. The applicant was never given a new separation packet after he told them of the errors. Also, he was forced to lose 60 days of leave and one can see the errors upon review of his separation packet and his Article 15, one can see he was not treated fairly. The applicant states, he wants his code removed as he served the country and deployed to Afghanistan, Africa, Iraq and Korea. The applicant would like his discharge corrected to prevent other Soldiers from being discharged over inaccurate accounts. In a records review conducted on 2 June 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request determining that the applicant's discharge reason was both proper and equitable. 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 27 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 March 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 7 July 2015, he assaulted M.R. by choking her; and, On or about 21 November 2015, he willfully disobeyed CPT D.'s lawful command to have no contact and to remain a certain distance form M.R., to include the location in which she resides, or words to that effect. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 April 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 1 June 2016, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 8 July 2016, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of honorable; and, suspended separation for a probationary period of six months. On 9 December 2016, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of honorable (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 December 2016 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 December 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91F10, Small Arms/Artillery Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 March 2009 - 14 May 2012 / HD RA, 15 May 2012 - 23 October 2012 / HD RA, 1 September 2012 - 4 December 2014 / HD d. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 September 2012 - 17 February 2013); Iraq (2 August 2011 - 12 November 2011) e. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CAB f. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2014 - 1 December 2014 / Fully Capable g. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military No-Contact Order Concerning Allegations of Domestic Assault, dated 28 October 2015, reflects the applicant was directed to: Remain 200 feet away from Ms. M. R.; Remain 1,000 away from the residence of Ms. M. R; Make no contact via phone, standard mail, e-mail, text message, social media, in-person or through third parties other than the chain of command with Ms. M. R; and, Refrain from visiting any establishments that Ms. M. R. was known to frequent. Report of Unfavorable Information for Security Determination, dated 24 November 2015, reflects the applicant's commander recommended the applicant's security clearance be suspended. The applicant on 21 November 2015, violated a military no contact order dated 28 October 2015, from the company commander that resulted in his arrest for domestic family violence and child endangerment. FG Article 15, dated15 January 2016, for willfully disobeying a no contact order (21 November 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,225 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, oral reprimand. Report of Unfavorable Information for Security Determination, dated 24 February 2016, reflects the applicant's commander recommended the applicant's security clearance be suspended. The applicant on 6 July 2015, the applicant was involved in a verbal altercation with his wife, which turned physical. Precept to Serve Copy of Indictment, reflects the applicant was indicted for the offense: Assault BI Fam/House 2+ W/IN 12 Months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 February 2016, 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. h. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None i. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 February 2016, 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: Adjustment Disorder, w / Anxiety and depressed mood, Marital Discord. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; DFAS Form 702; Senator letter. 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) 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. (4) 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). 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 was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635- 200 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ". The applicant was afforded an Admistrtive seperation board. The basis of seperation is well annotated and include multiple assaults, child endangerment and violations of direct orders. The discharge appears procedularly and administratively correct. There is not evidence that the discharge was inequatable, unjust or untrue or that the command acted with capriciousness. The applicant contends he was treated unfairly in his Article 15 proceedings and he requests to be paid for 60 days of leave, which he lost. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant contends the separation proceedings were unfair in because the case separation packet included documentation for a Driving While Intoxicated incident involving another individual, which was reviewed by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service which included two combat tours. 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 Board arrived at this finding based upon a review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. The applicant had multiple incidents of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) primarily as the offender of domestic assault and child endangerment; one notation of possible victim related to wife's self-defense. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for Bipolar Disorder; but the exam is unavailable. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. DOD medical records indicate an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder as well as repeated incidents of IPV as the offender. While the applicant is post-service connected for Bipolar Disorder, the ADRB's Medical Advisor, a voting member of the Board, was unable to determine trauma based on available documents if the condition existed in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. While liberal consideration was applied, the documented physical assault is not characteristic of his service connected-condition of Adjustment Disorder; it was a progression of an escalating argument versus impulsive and sudden event. The ADRB found it clear that the applicant understood he was aware of the action and possible consequences as demonstrated by the applicant's departure from the scene of the assault before the police arrived. Similarly, the Board found the applicant's violation of the no contact order involved a series of conscious and thought-out choices to include driving by the home, going into the home, taking a picture of his wife in bed with another individual, and then waking them up. Additionally, the applicant was aware of his actions and possible consequences as he left the scene. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite applying liberal consideration, the ADRB found that the applicant's misconduct cannot be mitigated by his diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, because Adjustment Disorder does not prevent logical thought nor does it reduce the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, the Board found that the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding of right and wrong by departing the scene of the assault prior to arrival of police. Lastly, the ADRB finds that the violence the applicant perpetrated on multiple occasions is too severe to mitigate or outweigh the discharge. b. Response to contentions: (1) The applicant contends he was treated unfairly in his Article 15 proceedings and he requests to be paid for 60 days of leave, which he lost. The applicant's requests do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with an honorable 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 the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. (3) The applicant contends the separation proceedings were unfair because the case separation packet included documentation for a Driving While Intoxicated incident involving another individual, which was reviewed by the separation authority. The separation packet reflects the separation authority approved the administrative separation board findings and recommendations and directed the applicant's discharge with an honorable characterization of service. The specific reasons for separation did not include a DWI offense. The ADRB decided that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence did not create a substantial doubt the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. (4) The applicant contends good service which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were considered. c. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service and reason are both equitable as the basis of separation is not mitigated nor outweighed by the applicant's diagnosis and service record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because it was already honorable. (2) The board voted to not change the reason as the reason is accurate, proper and equitable. IPV is a serious offense, and the reason for discharge is appropriate. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No 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 Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave HS - High School OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record HD - Honorable Discharge OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) Discharge BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other BH - Behavioral Health MP - Military Police PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Than Honorable CG - Company Grade Article 15 MST - Military Sexual Trauma RE - Re-entry Conditions CID - Criminal Investigation Division N/A - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial VA - Department of ELS - Entry Level Status NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SPCM - Special Court Martial Veterans Affairs FG - Field Grade Article 15 NIF - Not in File SPD - Separation Program Designator GD - General Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190002683 7