1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 April 2019 b. Date Received: 17 May 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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill for the purpose of attend a four-year University. In a records review conducted on 27 August 2021, and by a 4-1 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: 25 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 December 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to report to his appointed place of duty x8 (16 July 2016, 18 July 2016, 8 August 2016, 15 August 2016, 2 September 2016, 28 September 2016, 27 October 2016, and 10 November 2016); Being disrespectful in language and communicating a threat to a senior noncommissioned officer on 20 August 2016; and Altering an official record to give himself quarters on 9 November 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 December 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 January 2016 (2017) / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 January 2016 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88N10, Transportation Management Coordinator / 3 years, 11 months, 2 days (It should be noted the applicant's DD Form 214 under review does not account for the applicant's complete period of service in the USAR from 24 April 2013 to 27 January 2016). d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 24 April 2013 to 27 May 2013 / NA ADT, 28 May 2013 to 24 September 2013 / HD USAR, 25 September 2013 to 27 January 2016 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 7 July 2016, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty X6 (1 April 2016, 7 April 2016, 17 April 2016, 21 April 2016, 2 May 2016, and 16 May 2016). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days (7 days' extra duty and restriction were suspended). Field Grade Article 15, dated 19 September 2016, for four violations of Article 86 UCMJ, two violations of Article 91 UCMJ, one violation of Article 134 UCMJ, Guilty of all charges. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $878.00, (suspended), and extra duty for 30 days. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 1 November 2016, which vacates the suspension of forfeiture of $878.00 pay imposed on 15 September 2016. The vacation was based on the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 26 September 2016 and 28 September 2016 and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 30 September 2016. Company Grade Article 15, dated 7 December 2016, for violations of Article 86 UCMJ, on violation of Article 107 UCMJ, on violation of Article 91 UCMJU, Guilty of all charges. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $798.00 pay per month for one month, 14 days' extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 January 2017, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for insomnia, unspecified (per AHLTA). It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective to continue his chapter process. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and two-character reference letters. 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) 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 14-12b, 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's AMHRR 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 AMHRR indicates separation actions was initiated against the applicant for failing to report to his appointed place of duty X8 (16 July 2016, 18 July 2016, 8 August 2016, 15 August 2016, 2 September 2016, 28 September 2016, 27 October 2016, and 10 November 2016); being disrespectful in language and communicating a threat to a senior noncommissioned officer on 20 August 2016; and altering an official record to give himself quarters on 9 November 2016. The applicant seeks relief contending that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill for the purpose of attend a four-year University. The applicant's request was noted; however, 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. 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, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder while in the military. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD related to military service by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between PTSD and the applicant's multiple FTRs. As there is an association between PTSD and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between PTSD and applicant's disrespectfulness toward authority figures. The Board determined that these two offenses, therefore are mitigated by the PTSD diagnosis. However, altering an official record reflects deliberate, conscious behavior carried out for the purpose of secondary gain. Neither PTSD nor Adjustment Disorder are not associated with this kind of behavior, nor can they be expected to affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in the right. Therefore, the ADRB found that the applicant's misconduct of altering an official record is not mitigated or excused by the applicant's BH diagnoses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The ADRB found the applicant's offenses of Failure to Report and disrespectfulness are mitigated by PTSD and partially outweigh his discharge characterization. However, the Board determined the offense of altering an official record is not mitigated or excused, and does not outweigh the Adjustment Disorder and PTSD diagnoses. b. The applicant seeks relief contending that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill for the purpose of attend a four-year University. 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 majority of 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, despite applying liberal consideration, which PTSD and Adjustment Disorder mitigated part of the offenses, the altering of official records is a serious offense, and had no mitigating circumstances for the Board's consideration. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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 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 AR20190008233 3