1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 July 2019 b. Date Received: 15 July 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 conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he joined the Army to do good for his country and to give back to the American people. He states he has never been in trouble in his entire 30 years of life, but because he met and married the wrong person, he believes this as being the reason he lost his job and a portion of his life. He is now out of the service and the amount of time and dedication he invested, he believes he deserves an honorable characterization. He is currently working for Washington Federal Bank and Reach Now Services and attended college earning his bachelor's degree. He states he deserves to have an honorable discharge because he is a good person who did not deserve what was done to him. He states he has learned from his mistakes and assures it will not happen again. He is an outstanding citizen who cares about others and would like a second chance. He says he did not do the things he was accused of and was and always will be a good Soldier. The discharge is improper because his preservice conviction, listed on his enlistment documents was used in the discharge and believes his discharge was and is inequitable. He also believes he suffers from undiagnosed PTSD from his whole military experience. He is trying to move on with his life, but it is hard knowing he has a general discharge. In a records review conducted on 1 December 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 December 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 30 January 2017, 19 February 2017 and 8 June 2017, he was involved in a domestic dispute with his spouse. As of 1 February 2017, he was bound by a lawful order from Captain W.L.S. to cease all contact with his husband meaning that the domestic disputes which occurred on 19 February 2017 and 8 June 2017, were in a direct violation of the no-contact order. On 19 June 2017, he failed to obey a lawful order given to him by Captain W.L.S. to sign in at the Staff Duty desk every two hours starting from 1800 and ending at 2200 from Monday through Friday. On or about 5 July 2017, he missed an appointment at 1030 for his separation at Winder Clinic. (3) Recommended Characterization: Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 January 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 27 December 2017, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 February 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 September 2015 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 June 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. From a Behavioral Health perspective, the applicant met the medical fitness standards for retention per AR 40-501 3-31 to 3-37 as there was no indication of a current boardable Behavioral Health disorder interfering with his ability to perform all assigned military duties without limitations. Military Police Report, dated 30 January 2017, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: simple assault domestic violence. Military Police Report, dated 19 February 2017, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: aggravated assault and violation of no contact order. Military Police Report, dated 8 June 2017, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: burglary residential and violation of no contact order. One Personnel Action form, reflect the applicant's duty status changed from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 16 February 2018. Seven Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 20 days: NIF, 18 December 2017 - 19 December 2017 / NIF CMA, 16 February 2018 - 6 March 2018 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has achieved his Bachelor's Degree and has obtained employment. 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 14-3, 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. (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 he had never been in trouble in his 30 years of living, but met and married the wrong person which caused him to lose his job and a portion of his life. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his preservice civilian conviction listed on his enlistment documents were used in his discharge. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD from his entire military experience. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 June 2017, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any mental health diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends he has obtained employment and has earned his Bachelor's degree since being discharged. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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. In service, the applicant was diagnosed with Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders. Post-service, the VA service connected him for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Both conditions are potentially mitigating. Applicant also claims PTSD in a self- authored statement that could also mitigate applicant's basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. In service, the applicant was diagnosed with Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders, and claims undiagnosed PTSD in self-authored statement. Post-service, the VA service connected him for MDD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, liberally considered all the evidence and opined that while the applicant has been diagnosed with MDD, this condition does not mitigate assault, domestic violence or breaking a no-contact order. In reviewing the applicant's misconduct, the Board's Medical Advisor also opined that it is unlikely that the applicant's diagnoses of Other Depressive Disorders or MDD contributed to the applicant's misconduct. Specifically, applicant's conditions do not impair judgment or the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Moreover, the domestic violence and assault were the result of a progression and escalation of an argument between two unhappily married individuals. The misconduct exhibited by the applicant was not the result of nor was it influenced by any underlying psychopathology arising from the applicant's Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders or MDD. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that the applicant's undiagnosed PTSD does not mitigate or excuse the applicant's basis for separation for the same reasons. (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 assault, domestic violence, and breaking a no-contact order, outweighed the applicant's Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders, MDD, and PTSD. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends he had never been in trouble his 30 years of living but met and married the wrong person which caused him to lose his job and a portion of his life. The Board carefully considered this contention, but found the weight of the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the applicant failed to use any of the many resources both within and outside the military to help improve the marital relationship. The Board concluded that the applicant's acts of misconduct that were the basis for his separation are not mitigated by applicant's prior personal relationships (2) The applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his pre-service civilian conviction listed on his enlistment document was used in his discharge. The Board considered applicant's contention but found the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that applicant's pre-service civilian conviction was not used by the separation authority for applicant's basis for separation. Further, the Board found that the evidence supports a conclusion that the separation authority did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner during the discharge process. (3) The applicant contends he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD his entire military experience. Even after applying liberal consideration to applicant's PTSD contention, the applicant's AMHRR, MSE, DoD and VA records, support Board's conclusion that any applicant service-connected PTSD does not mitigate applicant's basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends good 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. The applicant's basis for separation brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation after committing an assault, domestic violence, and breaking a no-contact order. (5) The applicant contends he has obtained employment and earned his Bachelor's degree since being discharged. The Board considered the applicant's post service accomplishments during the proceedings. c. The Board determined that the discharge is 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 contentions 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 Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders, MDD, and self-authored PTSD statement did not mitigate the offenses of assault, domestic violence, or breaking a no-contact order. 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, and 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 MDD - Major Depressive Disorder 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 AR20190015617 3