1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 March 2019 b. Date Received: 29 March 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant through counsel requests an upgrade to honorable. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application; applicant was diagnosed with PTSD due to the events that occurred during his enlistment; applicant was eventually assigned a 70 percent disability rating by the VA; applicant had an exemplary service record and received numerous awards and decorations; applicant experienced family and personal problems during his service; applicant was subsequently diagnosed with insomnia, anxiety, and depression; he was prescribed two medications; and a discharge upgrade would improve the applicant's prospects for employment for his future family. In a records review conducted on 4 August 2021, and by a 5-0 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in- service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for the discharge; repeatedly failed to pass a record Army Physical Fitness Test. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 April 2010, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 May 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2008 / 4 years / It appears that block 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214 dated entered active duty this period is incorrect and should read as annotated in the Case Report and Directive. The contract for the period under review is not contained in the AMHRR. See Military Entrance Processing Station Orders 8057008 submitted with the application. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 56M10, Chaplain Assistant / 3 years, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAFR, 28 January 2007 to 28 May 2007 / NA USAF, 29 May 2007 to 11 December 2007 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 28 December 2008 to 14 October 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFTR, g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An approved Bar to Reenlistment, dated 8 August 2009. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 April 2010, indicates the applicant met retention standards IAW Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and did not have a psychiatric disorder which warranted disposition through medical channels. Applicant was mentally for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in the proceedings. Applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action. BH follow-up was recommended and scheduled. The applicant received several negative counselling statements regarding APFT failure; and a Bar to Reenlistment recommendation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Samaritan Medical Center Document, dated 18 May 2010, indicates the applicant was a walk-in with a diagnosis of depression and suicidal ideations. Applicant cut his right arm with a knife. The applicant reported no prior history of suicide attempt or organized plan and had adequate social support. Samaritan Medical Center Document, dated 19 May 2010, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder, severe, without psychotic episodes; and generalized anxiety disorder with history of panic attacks. Samaritan Medical Center Document, dated 26 May 2010, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of Major depressive disorder and Generalized anxiety disorder. The applicant was prescribed Celexa and Trazodone. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Letter, Touro College; VA Form 21-22a, Department of Veterans Affairs, Appointment of Individual as Claimant's Representative (two pages); Petitioner Brief (three pages); Petition (19 pages); Exhibit A, DD Form 214; Exhibit B, Applicant's Affidavit (eight pages); Exhibit C, 2017 Memorandum of Secretary of Defense (five pages); Exhibit D, 32 C.F.R. 70.9, Discharge Review Standards (four pages); Exhibit E, VA Medical Records (254 pages); and Exhibit F, Family Pictures (six pages); Samaritan Medical Center Documents (18 pages) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Applicant's counsel states in his brief, applicant is employed as House-Monitor at the Department of Social Services, at a Homeless Shelter in Port Jefferson. The applicant is responsible for the safety and security of the house and assisting patients in their search for permanent housing and educational programs. The applicant recently graduated from St. Joseph's College with a degree in Human Services. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (6) Paragraph 13-10, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. An honorable characterization of service generally is required when the Government initially introduces limited use evidence. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. f. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" 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 through counsel requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application; The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD due to the events that occurred during his enlistment; applicant was eventually assigned a 70 percent disability rating by the VA. The AMHRR contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition nor the VA granting the applicant a 70 percent disability rating. The applicant had an exemplary service record; and he received numerous awards and decorations. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant experienced family and personal problems during his service time. The AMHRR does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with insomnia, anxiety, and depression; he was prescribed two medications. The applicant provided a Samaritan Medical Center Document, which revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of Major depressive disorder and Generalized anxiety disorder. The applicant was prescribed Celexa and Trazodone. A discharge upgrade would improve the applicant's prospects for employment for his future family. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder. The applicant was hospitalized at the end of his service off-post with diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Post-service, he is service connected for combat related PTSD with additional diagnoses of MDD, GAD, and various substance use disorders. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? YES. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder and at the end of service with MDD and GAD at a civilian facility. Although the applicant is post-service connected for PTSD, documentation is insufficient to determine whether or not it existed in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? NO. Although the applicant is diagnosed with PTSD, documentation does not support the applicant's poor performance was related to trauma or a form of avoidance. Rather, the poor APFT performance appears to be a continuation of his initial enlistment in the Air Force; he was discharged due to not passing physical requirements. While liberal consideration was applied, the basis for separation is not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? NO. Not passing physical examinations does not directly fall under the purview of liberal consideration. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends a diagnosis of PTSD due to the events that occurred during his enlistment; the VA eventually assigned the applicant a 70 percent disability rating. The AMHRR contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to support the contention that the discharge resulted from any medical condition or the VA granting the applicant a 70 percent disability rating. (2) The applicant contends having an exemplary service record, and he received numerous awards and decorations. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service before the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. (3) The applicant contends having experienced family and personal problems during his service time. The AMHRR does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. (4) The applicant contends receiving a discharge upgrade would improve the applicant's prospects for employment for his future family. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable and too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD, MDD, and GAD). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to honorable because there is no other misconduct listed in the AMHRR and there is no reason given for a GD. (2) The board voted to not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 N/A - 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 - Re-entry 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 AR20190005659 6