1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 24 October 2019 b. Date Received: 29 October 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: 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, the applicant was a good Soldier and was never in trouble. The applicant was promoted to E-5 in 3 years ahead of peers, filled an E-7 billet, and graduated the top student in the class at WLC on the Commandant’s List. The applicant earned the CIB for service in Iraq. The applicant admits the only problem, created, was going home (on base housing) during the time of duty, against orders, out of fear of child endangerment. Other than that, the applicant’s overall character of service during the 6 years and 10 months of service was honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 July 2022, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 19 July 2012, disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer, on 28 February 2013, violated a no contact order given to the applicant by CPT M., on 1 March 2013, failed to go at the time prescribed, to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0600 hours accountability formation, dishonorably failed to pay a debt in the amount of $646.86 to Omni Financial and on 13 May 2013, assaulted E. O., by dragging a female individual by the hair and shirt. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 15 August 2013, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority determined that the applicant medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct and did not warrant disability processing. Therefore, disposition through the physical disability system was not appropriate. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 December 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 1 Year College / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B10, Infantryman / 6 years, 8 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 February 2007 – 22 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (27 November 2008 – 1 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2010 – 14 February 2011 / Among The Best 15 February 2011 – 24 July 2011 / Among The Best 25 July 2011 – 24 July 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 27 August 2012, for disrespectful language and deportment toward SSG V. on 19 July 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,133 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 2 April 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 1 March 2013, and for failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully contacting the applicant’s spouse on 28 February 2013. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Receipt for Inmate or Detained Person, dated 13 May 2013, reflects the applicant was detained for violation of Article #134, Spousal Abuse. A Military Protective Order and a Military No-Contact Order dated 13 May 2013. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 August 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 4 April 2013, reflected the applicant was diagnosed with: S/P Head Injury with TBI Stabilized, Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and alcohol abuse. The applicant met medical retention standards for these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 14-3, 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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. SUMMARY 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the VA has 100% service connected the applicant for PTSD related to combat. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a diagnosis, PTSD, which mitigates some of the misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD and problems with authority figures, there is a nexus between the applicant’s PTSD and use of disrespectful language toward an NCO. PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s offense of assaulting the spouse. Specifically, applicant’s repeated acts of domestic violence were not unpremeditated, the choice of victim was not random or accidental, the repeated acts of domestic violence did not relate to combat-related traumatic events in such a way to suggest a re-enactment of the combat trauma, and the applicant could speak coherently of the events prior to, during and after the domestic violence incidents. Finally, applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD does not mitigate the failure to pay debt as PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD completely outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation, specifically domestic violence and failure to pay debts. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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. By assaulting the applicant’s spouse and failing to pay a debt to Omni, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant assaulting the spouse is not an acceptable response to dealing with family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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(s) 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 abuse of a spouse and failure to pay a debt. 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, as 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 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 AR20190015654 1