1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 June 2019 b. Date Received: 24 June 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he had good service, including a deployment. He never missed battle assemblies or trainings and attained the rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/E- 7. His misconduct did not occur during duty and is not a representation of his service. In a records review conducted on 17 November 2021, and by a 5 - 0 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 March 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant pled guilty and was convicted of the conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. On 23 September 2016, the applicant was committed to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for a term of 78 months. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 October 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 June 2014 / 6 years (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / NIF / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 92F40, Petroleum Supply Specialist / NIF d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 7 July 2000 - 26 June 2014 / NIF RA, 23 August 2000 - 11 December 2000 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 9 November 2007 - 19 December 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOTR, AAM, CAB, ARCOM, ASR, NDSM g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2006 - 31 May 2007 / Fully Capable 1 June 2007 - 31 May 2008 / Fully Capable 1 June 2008 - 31 May 2009 / Fully Capable 1 June 2009 - 31 May 2010 / Fully Capable 1 June 2010 - 31 May 2011 / Among The Best 1 June 2012 - 31 May 2013 / Fully Capable 1 June 2013 - 31 May 2014 / Fully Capable 1 June 2014 - 31 May 2015 / Fully Capable 1 June 2015 - 9 February 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Actions (s) / Evidentiary Record: On 23 September 2016, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky-Northern Division at Covington, the applicant pled guilty and was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The applicant was committed to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for a term of 78 months. On 14 February 2017, the applicant was declared an unsatisfactory participant due to accumulating 9 or more unexcused absences. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Separation Documents, Court Documents, DD Forms 214-2, Orders 17-298-00024, dated 25 October 2017 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 AR 135-178 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) Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (6) The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time- honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. (7) Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events, which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. Orders 17-298-00024, dated 25 October 2017 issued by Headquarters, 88th Regional Support Command, reflects the applicant was discharged from the US Army Reserve, effective 25 October 2017, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge The applicant contends he had good service, including a deployment. He never missed battle assemblies or trainings and attained the rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. His misconduct did not occur during duty and is not a representation of his service. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records. The applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD related to combat by the VA. PTSD, under Liberal Consideration, is a potentially mitigating BH condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The VA rating of 100% service connection for applicant's diagnosis of PTSD establishes that the condition was present during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant is 100% VA service connected for PTSD, this condition does not mitigate his offenses of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine are not part of the natural history of PTSD. Specifically, the applicant's actions with regards to these charges were not spontaneous or unpremeditated; engagement in this misconduct did not occur by chance or accident and the misconduct itself reflected motivation and rationalization. In short, the applicant's misconduct was conscious, purposeful and performed to obtain a financial goal. Such behavior is inconsistent with the diagnosis of PTSD. Accordingly, while Liberal Consideration was applied, the applicant's misconduct was not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's missed drill due to incarceration for conspiracy to distribute and possession of Methamphetamine outweighed the applicant's PTSD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. The applicant contends he had good service, including a deployment. He never missed battle assemblies or trainings and attained the rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. His misconduct did not occur during duty and is not a representation of his service. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's 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. While the applicant contends not missing drills, there are at least nine missed drills documented. By the missed drills on the basis of incarceration for conspiracy to distribute and possession of Methamphetamine, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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 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, the applicant's PTSD did not mitigate the offenses of conspiracy to distribute and possession of Methamphetamine. 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) As there were no Reasons/SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. 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 AR20190011316 3