1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 June 2019 b. Date Received: 14 June 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, he served over 10 years on active duty without any trouble and was careless one evening. The applicant states, he has regrets and has not been in any trouble since that time. He believes being discharged from the military was punishment enough. In a records review conducted on 1 December 2021, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable, changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, and the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 8 August 2015, he operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 December 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 7 December 2015, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 March 2012 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / High School Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 14 years, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 4 January 2002 - 25 May 2005 / NIF RA, 26 May 2005 - 23 August 2007 / HD RA, 24 August 2007 - 2 March 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (12 June 2011 - 5 June 2012); Iraq (22 April 2009 - 1 April 2010; 1 September 2006 - 14 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, ACM-2CS, ICM- 2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 31 August 2011 - 30 August 2012 / Fully Capable 31 August 2012 - 30 August 2013 / Among The Best 31 August 2013 - 30 August 2014 / Fully Capable 31 August 2014 - 30 August 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 20 August 2015, drove a motor vehicle off post when his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .08 percent or higher in violation of state laws. On or about 8 August 2015, the applicant was arrested by the Leesville Police Department for driving under the influence and improper lane usage. He was taken into custody and transported to the Leesville Police Department where you were given a breathalyzer that indicated a blood alcohol content of .186 percent, which is more than twice the legal limit. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149. 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), 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) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records. The Applicant has been diagnosed and rated as 70% service connected for combat-related PTSD, a potentially mitigating diagnosis. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant has been diagnosed and rated as 70% service connected for combat-related PTSD by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. Based on the available information, it is the Agency's BH Advisor's opinion that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition, PTSD. As there is an association between PTSD and the use of alcohol to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and his arrest for DUI. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board arrived at this finding based upon full mitigation of applicant's misconduct by the diagnosis of combat-related PTSD outweighs his basis for discharge and warrants a discharge upgrade. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's DUI. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tours. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's service and considered this contention during board proceedings. c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's misconduct for receiving a DUI. 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 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 AR20190009240 1