. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 January 2019 b. Date Received: 22 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was an amazing Soldier, who was promoted ahead of his peers and went on four deployments. The applicant states, he has no criminal record and is an outstanding citizen in his community. The applicant is furthering his education, but his discharge is hindering his benefits, which would allow him to complete his degree. In a records review conducted on 27 May 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 April 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 February 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 19 April 2017, he received a Field Grade Article 15 for one violation of Article 92, UCMJ, failure to obey lawful order. He received reduction to Specialist (E4), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 22 October 2017; forfeiture of $1,216.00 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 25 October 2017; restriction to the limits of the company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 60 days; oral reprimand; On or about 15 June 2017, his punishment of reduction to Specialist (E4) and forfeiture of $1,216.00 pay was vacated for one violation of Article 121, UCMJ, Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation; and, On or about 8 June 2017, he failed to follow the Task Force Falcon Housing Standard Operating Procedures in Illesheim, Germany. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 February 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 22 February 2018, the applicant acknowledged he was entitled to an administrative separation board because he was being considered under an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The applicant requested an administrative separation board and requested to personally appear before the board. The separation packet is void of any evidence that an administrative separation board was convened. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 February 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25B10 P5, IT Specialist / 5 years, 8 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 July 2012 - 2 February 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2015 - 14 November 2016 / Qualified 15 November 2016 - 3 April 2017 / Qualified 15 November 2016 - 15 June 2017 / Not Qualified The applicant's service record includes two NCO Evaluation Reports, with a "From" date of 15 November 2016. h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 April 2017, for failing to obey a lawful order by traveling beyond 35 KM limit at or near Nurnberg Germany (1 April 2017). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,216 pay (suspended); restriction for 60 days; and, oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 15 June 2017, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 25 April 2017, was vacated because the applicant stole meals by utilizing his meal card while receiving BAS at the Storck Barracks DFAC, military property, of a value of about $32.55, the property of the Army. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 August 2017, 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: Occupational Problem; Relational Problem; Antisocial and Borderline Personality Traits. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DA Form 2166-9-1; third party statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has no criminal record and is an outstanding citizen in his community and is furthering his education. 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. (1) 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. (2) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (3) Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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 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 that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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's Medical Advisor, a voting member of the board, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records. DOD medical records indicate the applicant held in- service diagnoses, including Malingering, Antisocial and Borderline Personality Traits, Occupational and Relational Problems, Adjustment Disorder, and ADHD; ADHD was later removed after two separate assessment batteries determined the applicant was exaggerating. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Medical records indicate the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Malingering, Antisocial and Borderline Personality Traits, Occupational and Relational Problems, Adjustment Disorder, and ADHD; ADHD was later removed after two separate assessment batteries determined the applicant was exaggerating. While he is post-service connected for PTSD, documentation does not support the applicant had the condition in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? NO. The Board's Medical Advisor opined the applicant's misconduct is typical of misconduct displayed by other Soldiers with similar diagnoses of Antisocial and Borderline Personality Traits. These personality disorders are not mental illnesses rendering the applicant incapable of following rules and regulations. The Board determined that the applicant's misconduct, including disobeying orders by traveling outside the pass limit, obtaining meals in the DFAC without paying, and failing to follow housing SOPs, were deliberate actions done in spite of knowing they were wrong, not because of the applicant's Personality Disorders. Similarly, despite applying liberal consideration, the ADRB determined that the applicant's PTSD diagnosis does not excuse or mitigate any of the applicant's misconduct, because PTSD is associated with impulsive behaviors, and the applicant's behaviors required deliberate thought and planning. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite applying liberal consideration, the ADRB determined that the applicant's misconduct outweighs his diagnoses Antisocial and Borderline Personality Traits, and PTSD. This is because none of these diagnoses prevent the applicant from understanding the difference between right and wrong, and PTSD is associated with impulsive behaviors, and none of the applicant's misconduct was impulsive. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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. (2) The eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post- 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board's consideration, as the PTSD event occurred after the misconduct. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority 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 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 AR20190003815 2