1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 May 2019 b. Date Received: 28 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 had an excellent record until 2011, he received numerous awards & citations during his military service. In 2011 he got married and everything went downhill from there. He believes he was an excellent Soldier until he was married and began to have problems with his wife (now ex-wife). She was taking all of his pay, she had his power of attorney and ran up $30,000.00 in debt that he had no way to pay. He tried taking a second job to pay the bills but his commander said that he disobeyed a direct order by doing so. He tried getting an AER Loan but the debt to pay ratio was so high that he didn't qualify. In a records review conducted on 24 September 2021, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). 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), 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for on 1 February 2012 and 9 February 2012, without authority failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; On 5 March 2012, 9 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 13 March 2012, 5 April 2012, 17 April 2012, without authority failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; and On or about 30 November 2011 and 15 January 2012, disobeyed a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 August 2006 / 6 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 74D10, Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Specialist / 6 years, 1 month, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (17 October 2007 to 20 November 2008) Afghanistan (15 June 2010 to 9 April 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM, MUC, VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ICM-CS, ACM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009, Fully Capable 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010, Fully Capable 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, Fully Capable 1 January 2012 to 24 May 2012, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form's 4187 (Personnel Action) changing the applicant's duty status as follows: Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave (AWOL), effective 14 January 2012 AWOL to Hospital, effective 20 January 2012 Hospital to PDY, effective 16 February 2012 FG Article 15, dated 23 May 2012, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 February 2012, without authority, going from his appointed place of duty 9 February 2012, 5 March 2012, 9 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 13 March 2012, 5 April 2012, and 17 April 2012, and disobeying a lawful order from Sergeant First Class R.H.L., a superior noncommissioned officer 30 November 2011 and 15 January 2012. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,133.00 pay per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. 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: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 June 2012, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Anxiety Disorder, NOS. It was noted that the applicant screened positive for PTSD, though he did not meet full criteria for the disorder. His psychiatric condition did not directly relate to his alleged misconduct. He met medical retention standards, and was cleared for all administrative actions deemed appropriated by command including administrative separation under Chapter 13 or 14- 12 or AR 635-200. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; several letters of support; enlisted record brief, dated 19 October 2011; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 14-12c, 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 "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). (1) 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates that separation action was initiated against the applicant for on 1 February 2012 and 9 February 2012, without authority failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; on 5 March 2012, 9 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 13 March 2012, 5 April 2012, and 17 April 2012, without authority failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; and on or about 30 November 2011 and 15 January 2012, disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. The applicant seeks relief contending that he had an excellent record until 2011, he received numerous awards & citations during his military service. In 2011 he got married and everything went downhill from there. He believes he was an excellent Soldier until he was married and began to have problems with his wife (now ex-wife). She was taking all of his pay, she had his power of attorney and ran up $30,000.00 in debt that he had no way to pay. He tried taking a second job to pay the bills but his commander said that he disobeyed a direct order by doing so. He tried getting an AR Loan but the debt to pay ratio was so high that he didn't qualify. The applicant's contentions were noted; the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Additionally, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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. 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 PTSD related to combat. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. While on active duty, he was diagnosed with PTSD. Since leaving active duty, he has been 70% service- connected by the VA for his diagnosis of PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his multiple FTRs. As there is an association between PTSD and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his two incidents of disobeying a superior NCO's lawful orders. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's PTSD mitigates and outweighs his FTRs and disobedience. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the BH conditions outweighed the cause for separation. b. The applicant seeks relief contending that he had an excellent record until 2011, he received numerous awards & citations during his military service. In 2011 he got married and everything went downhill from there. The Board determined that this contention was valid, and agreed that the disobedience was deliberate and related to the second employment. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigates and outweighs the offenses of FTR and disobedience. 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 AR20190008819 1