1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 May 2019 b. Date Received: 19 July 2019 c. Counsel: 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 was administratively separated from the Army by reason of parenthood and given a general discharge because he was not able to provide a family care plan. The applicant believes he should have been given an honorable discharge based on his overall service record and his combat service in Iraq and Afghanistan and an in- service diagnosis for PTSD resulting from his combat service. The applicant states, while he was in the Army, he was receiving treatment for combat trauma with his unit's psychologist, and was diagnosed with having PTSD by a team of mental health professionals after he was hospitalized for suicidal ideation al Madigan Army Medical Hospital. The applicant was hospitalized for 10 days at the psych-ward at Madigan Hospital following an uncontrollable outburst that led to an assault and suicidal ideation. He believes he should have been recommended for PTSD examination by his unit's psychologist after an earlier suicide attempt two weeks before he was hospitalized. The applicant was recommended for a full PTSD evaluation by physicians at Madigan, but was never given that opportunity because he was taken to jail after he was released and was discharged from the Army while he was in jail awaiting trial. The applicant believes that had he been thoroughly evaluated for PTSD sooner rather than later, he would have been eligible for a medical discharge and received treatment for his PTSD and suicidal ideations and avoided having a criminal record. The applicant believes had he been medically discharged, he would ultimately have earned an honorable discharge. The applicant strongly believes his PTSD was not considered when he was discharged because of his PTSD, he was mentally unable to move assertively to gain any documentation to prove that his son's welfare was left to the applicant and could not provide a family care plan. He is certain that if it was not for his PTSD, he would not have inherited a criminal record. The applicant states his unit knew he was in therapy with his unit's psychologist for four months before the incident and was informed of his PTSD diagnoses while he was at Madigan. The applicant believes that had his unit taken considers his PTSD, he would have received an honorable discharge instead. The applicant's commander recommended an honorable discharge, but he learned months later after returning home to New York that he was given a general discharge. On the day that he was released from Madigan, he was taken to his unit to sign separation paperwork where police were waiting for him to take him to jail. At the time, he was not mentally fit to sign the paperwork and was in a state of shock because he was going to jail and he just signed the paperwork and did not know what he was signing. The applicant states, he continues serving the country by helping veterans and is GS-4, File Clerk, in an Orlando VA. Previously he dedicated his time in assisting veterans by providing them guidance towards the proper resources as a "veteran peer navigator" at Samaritan Village, a non-profit organization in New York City. There, he helped to prevent veteran homelessness within the guidelines of the Supportive Services for Veterans Families program, chaperoned veterans to appointments and aided them to find employment with job placement services. The applicant has made it his business to service veterans to the best of his ability and desires to further his education to continue to do so. Since his discharge he has worked as a case worker specifically for veterans and has been going to school and has acquired a bachelor's degree in human services. The applicant has been paying half of his tuition because he only receives 50 percent of his tuition paid through the GI Bill due to his discharge. Because of his discharge and income, he does not qualify for state funded student aid. His ultimate goal is to become a Licensed Clinical Social Worker after earning his Masters in Social Work. The applicant implores the Board to consider his argument as substantial for why he deserves an honorable discharge, which will allow him to continue his education and best serve the veteran community. The applicant enjoys what he does and wants to become proficient in his field and go as far as possible with his education in order to provide the best service to the community and any organization where he may work. The applicant believes the better he markets himself, the better chance he will have to be considered by companies for employment despite his criminal record. He states, there was a time when he felt the most pride, when he put on his uniform and carried out a mission with his battle buddies. The Board can give him the tools in order to feel that pride again. The applicant further details his contentions in an allied legal brief submitted with the application. In a records review conducted on 2 June 2021, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Parenthood / AR 635-200 / Chapter 5-8 / JDG / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In that having been counseled of his duties to provide a family care plan to your Company Commander on 27 August 2012, he indicated on 17 September 2012 that he was not able to provide an adequate family care plan now or in the future. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 October 2012, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 9 October 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2012 / General (under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 February 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / GED / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 6 years, 1 month, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 August 2006 - 4 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 March 2011 - 16 January 2012); Iraq (3 August 2008 - 17 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2010 - 31 October 2011 / Among The Best 1 February 2011 - 31 January 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 23 July 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Larceny of AAFES Property (On Post); and, Shoplifting/Recovered (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 24 August 2012, for stealing a pair of sunglasses, of a value of $500 or less, the property of the AAFES (23 July 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,133 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Hospital," effective 30 September 2012; and, From "Hospital" to "Civilian Confinement," effective 9 October 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his active duty Narrative Discharge Summary, dated 9 October 2012, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment disorder with disturbance of mood and conduct; PTSD. Behavioral Health Recommendations (memo), dated 23 August 2012, reflects the applicant had been seen voluntarily at the 1ST Special Forces Group Behavioral Health Section, at the Winder Clinic. At the clinic, he was participating in individual Psychotherapy with MAJ W. M., Psychologist, on three occasions, beginning 2 August 2012, for psychological issues associated with combat traumas and environmental stressors. He presented initial psychological symptoms of anxiety, difficulties concentrating, lack of sleep, loss of interests, hypervigilance, and nightmares. The applicant provided a copy of his VA benefits entitlement decision, dated 10 April 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for PTSD with major depressive disorder and cannabis use disorder (also claimed as anxiety). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with allied legal brief with all listed enclosures; copies of military service records; case separation packet; college transcripts. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has worked as a case worker specifically for veterans and has been going to school and has acquired a bachelor's degree in human services. 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) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. (6) Paragraph 5-8 provides that a Soldier may be separated when parental obligations interfere with fulfillment of military responsibilities. Specific reasons for separation because of parenthood include inability to perform prescribed duties satisfactorily, repeated absenteeism, late for work, inability to participate in field training exercises or perform special duties such as CQ and Staff Duty NCO, and non-availability for worldwide assignment or deployment according to the needs 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 "JDG" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-8, Parenthood. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JDG" 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's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Separation packet indicates applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-8, by reason of Parenthood, with a characterization of service of General, Under Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant contends his rights were violated when he waived an administrative separation board and the right to counsel, when he was forced to sign the waiver immediately following his release from psychiatric care. The applicant contends other Soldiers with PTSD have been granted relief by the Board. The applicant claims the offenses that caused his characterization of service were minor in nature. The applicant contends he had good service which included two combat tours. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. The applicant contends an upgrade of his discharge will allow better employment. 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) Applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Panic Disorder, and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) The medical records in AHLTA document applicant had in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, Panic Disorder, PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (NO) Despite applying liberal consideration, the ADRB found that PTSD does not interfere with being able to logistically arrange for child care and create a family care plan is. Furthermore, information within the applicant's DOD Medical record indicate that the applicant had contact with Family Advocacy Program for spouse abuse, as well as arrest for violent assault shortly before discharge. The ADRB found that the assault was the likely reason for the applicant's General characterization. Additionally, the applicant's record indicates that the applicant was punished for shoplifting. Such misconduct is not associated with PTSD, as it requires planning and forethought, which are not associated with PTSD symptoms. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (NO) While the applicant's reason for discharge is Parenthood, despite applying liberal consideration, the ADRB found that the likely reason for the applicant's discharge was a violent assault shortly before discharge. The ADRB found that the applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the misconduct, including multiple instances of violent behavior over a period of time, both intimate partner violence and a violent assault, and shoplifting, that resulted in the applicant's less than honorable discharge characterization. b. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant provided evidence of a 100 percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment disorder with disturbance of mood and conduct and PTSD. The ADRB agrees the applicant has a service connected diagnosis of PTSD. c. The applicant contends his rights were violated when he waived an administrative separation board and the right to counsel, when he was forced to sign the waiver immediately following his release from psychiatric care. The ADRB carefully considered this contention, but the Board decided the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. d. The applicant contends other Soldiers with PTSD have been granted relief by the Board. The ADRB grants relief on the merits of each case, weighing each applicant's conditions or experiences against the misconduct leading to separation. Likewise, in this case, the ADRB has carefully considered all matters presented by the applicant and contained in his AMHRR and medical records. e. The applicant claims the offenses that caused his characterization of service were minor in nature. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. However, Paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. The ADRB determined the applicant's discharge to be proper and equitable as a result of the totality of misconduct noted in his record leading up to his separation. f. The applicant contends he had good service which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The Army recognized the applicant's honorable service with an honorable discharge for his first term of enlistment, ending 4 February 2008. g. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service was proper and equitable, despite applying liberal consideration, after weighing the character of discharge against a violent assault shortly before discharge and the applicant's punishment for shoplifting, as well as a history of domestic violence. h. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service after reviewing applicant's total service record. The board considered the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) as an offender prior to deployments and prior to discharge, the applicant was arrested for violent assault. In addition, the Board's BH Doctor opined that the diagnosed Adjustment Disorder, Panic Disorder and PTSD did not interfere with being able to logistically arrange child care and create a family care plan. (2) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE code will not change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 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 AR20190014398 1