1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 March 2019 b. Date Received: 8 March 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he strongly disagrees with the characterization of service and discharge he received after serving the country for three years. He was diagnosed with sleep insomnia due to hearing his mother's voice in is head while trying to sleep causing him wake up late for formation. His separation packet consists of multiple times where Army Regulations were violated. His medical examination for separation does not state his diagnosis. There was no real effort on his commander's to rehabilitate him. He was not given the chance to go through an MEB which the regulations state he should have. In a records review conducted on 19 May 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 January 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to report on diverse occasions to his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 January 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 February 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 May 2014 / 4 years / Moral Waiver / 19 March 2014 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 2 years, 9 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 27 April 2016, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x7 (8 April 2016, 8 April 2016, 31 March 2016, 4 February 2016, 9 December 2015, 4 December 2015 and 28 July 2015); and without authority, go from his appointed place of duty (12 August 2015); reduction to PV2 / E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $500 pay, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 12 December 2016, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x2 (11 October 2016 and 26 October 2016); reduction to PFC / E-3, forfeiture of $409 pay and extra duty for 14 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 November 2016, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct and Axis II, unspecified personality disorder. He screened positive for PTSD; however, he did not meet criteria for the condition. He screened negative for TBI. He met retention standards under Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and did not warrant disposition through a MEB. Additionally, he did not meet criteria for an administrative separation under Chapter 5-13 or 5-17, AR 635-200. He was responsible for his behavior, could distinguish between right and wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative or judicial proceedings. He was cleared from a psychological standpoint; therefore, he was cleared for any administrative action Command deems necessary. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 21 December 2016, relates the applicant was diagnosed with insomnia disorder and an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Self-authored statement (two pages); DD Form 214; Request for Redress of Grievances Under Article 138; Article 138 Complaint (two pages); Memorandum, Request for an Extension Time to Prepare Matters in Rebuttal, Extenuation, and Mitigation, Separation Proceedings, Chapter 14-12b, Allegations of a Pattern of Misconduct (two pages); Memorandum, Rebuttal Matters and Matters in Extenuation, and Mitigation, Separation Proceedings (two pages); Memorandum, Rehabilitation Efforts; Support Statement (Applicant's Sister); Email traffic; Chronological Record of Medical Care (ten pages); two Monthly Counseling Statements; Request for Redress of Grievances Under Article 138-Inbox (two pages), Yahoo Mail; Physical Profile; Physical Profile Record; Report of Mental Status Evaluation (three pages); Lexicomp Online, Quetiapine (Patient Education-Adult Medication, four pages); and Excerpt of AR 635-200, (pages 15-17); 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with 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) 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 14-3 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. (7) 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 "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. 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 applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he strongly disagrees with the characterization of service and discharge he received after serving the country for three years. 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 further contends he was diagnosed with sleep insomnia due to hearing his mother's voice in is head while trying to sleep causing him wake up late for formation. A chronological record of medical care, shows the applicant was diagnosed with insomnia disorder and an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression; and he was prescribed medications for these conditions. The applicant also contends his separation packet consists of multiple times where Army Regulations were violated. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was denied due process. The applicant additionally contends, his medical examination for separation does not state his diagnosis. The record of evidence shows that on 21 November 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct and an unspecified personality disorder. Furthermore, the applicant contends, there was no real effort on his commander's to rehabilitate him. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was not given the chance to go through an MEB which the regulations state he should have. The Report of Mental Status Evaluation, further shows that the applicant met retention standards under Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and did not warrant disposition through a MEB. 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. 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. Applicant has been diagnosed with Insomnia Disorder, most likely secondary to Schizoaffective Disorder. Both of these conditions are potentially mitigating. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant's military medical records document he suffered from insomnia and psychotic symptoms while on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. Applicant's diagnosis of Insomnia Disorder mitigates his discharge given the nexus between insomnia and failing to report. His diagnosis of Insomnia Disorder also mitigates his offense of disrespectfulness given the nexus between insomnia and irritability. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Applicant's diagnosis of Insomnia Disorder, most likely secondary to a major psychiatric illness (Schizoaffective Disorder) outweighs his discharge characterization. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant seeks relief contending, he strongly disagrees with the characterization of service and discharge he received after serving the country for three years. Due to the mitigating BH conditions, the Board considered this contention as valid and voted to grant relief. (2) The applicant further contends he was diagnosed with sleep insomnia due to hearing his mother's voice in is head while trying to sleep causing him wake up late for formation. Due to the mitigating BH conditions, the Board considered this contention as valid and voted to grant relief. (3) The applicant also contends his separation packet consists of multiple times where Army Regulations were violated. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was denied due process. (4) The applicant additionally contends his medical examination for separation does not state his diagnosis. The record of evidence shows that on 21 November 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct and an unspecified personality disorder. (5) The applicant contends there was no real effort on his command team to rehabilitate him. Before taking this contention into account, the Board already granted relief based on the mitigating BH conditions. (6) The applicant contends he was not given the chance to go through an MEB which the regulations state he should have. Before taking this contention into account, the Board already granted relief based on the mitigating BH conditions. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's insomnia disorder mitigated the offenses of disrespect and FTR. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20190003819 1