1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 April 2019 b. Date Received: 18 April 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The applicant states he now has a 70-percent disability rating for anxiety and depression. The applicant states he is now taking medication for his medical issuers. The applicant also states he is a husband and father. The applicant goes on to state his job does not give him the monetary ability to provide for his child's future and he would like the opportunity to attend college in order to provide for his child's future. In a records review conducted on 14 July 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD), and prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, 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), with a corresponding separation code of 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 March 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for marijuana on a urinalysis; failed to report at the prescribed time to accountability formation on 3 separate occasions; failed to obey a lawful order; and being AWOL on two separate instances for periods of time in excess of 24 hours. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Applicant waived legal counsel on 10 April 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 April 2007 / General, (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 April 2006 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92W, Water Treatment Specialist / 4 years, 1 month, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 February 2003 - 26 April 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (28 April 2003 - 28 February 2004), Iraq (18 September 2005 - 8 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ICM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 March 2005, reflects the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 7 September 2004, 9 September 2004, and 13 September 2004; was derelict in the performance of his duties; and the applicant was absent without authority from on or about 10 December 2004 to on or about 14 December 2004 and from on or about 28 December 2004 to on or about 11 January 2005. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2; forfeiture of $692.00 pay per month for two months, restriction for 45 days, both suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 30 August 2005; and extra duty for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 21 December 2006, reflects the applicant wrongfully used marijuana on or between 16 August 2006 and 15 September 2006. The punishment consisted of reduction to private first class; forfeiture of $846.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 21 February 2007; and restriction and extra duty for 45 days. Developmental Counseling Form informing the applicant of the results of his urinalysis test results. A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 January 2007, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible; had the capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; and met retention requirements. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 4 days, 10 December 2004 - 13 December 2004 / Applicant Returned, AWOL 14 days, 28 December 2004 - 10 January 2005, Applicant Returned j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 149, Letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, dated 11 March 2019, DD Form 214 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is a husband and father. 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. 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the 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 misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends he now has a 70-percent disability rating for anxiety and depression from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. The applicant states he would like the opportunity to attend college. 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. Further, 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: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) PTSD is a mitigating factor for discharges under Liberal Consideration. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (YES) The VA has established that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD was related to his military combat service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (YES) The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD outweighs his discharge (see section C. above) and warrants a discharge upgrade. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention, but relief was already granted based on mitigation from the applicant's PTSD diagnosis. (2) The applicant contends that he is service-connected from the VA. The Board concurred with this contention and granted relief based on the PTSD mitigating the basis for separation. (3) The applicant states he would like the opportunity to attend college. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD), and prior period of honorable service. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because the basis for separation, AWOL, FTR, drug abuse, is mitigated by a BH condition, PTSD. (2) The board voted to change the reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) because the offenses still occurred, but are considered minor once liberal consideration is applied in the lens of the PTSD diagnosis. (3) The new SPD code is JKN, but the RE-code remains the same as the RE-code associated with a minor infraction discharge is a "3," which the applicant already holds. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20190006406 7