1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 January 2019 b. Date Received: 31 January 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable an upgrade of his narrative reason for separation from NGR 600-200 alcohol or other drug abuse to miscellaneous, and to upgrade his separation code to a corresponding code all based on the grounds of propriety and equity. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded as a matter of equity considering the circumstances surrounding his separation in conjunction with his post- traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and service record. The applicant believes his characterization is unduly harsh and inequitable compared to the conduct that led to his separation, particularly considering the post-traumatic stress disorder was a substantial component of that conduct. The applicant believes his characterization is inequitable because it does not accurately reflect the quality of his service during the majority of his eight-year tenure in the Illinois National Guard or his exemplary post-service conduct. It should be noted; the applicant previously applied to the ADRB, but the case was closed for failure to exhaust through the ILARNG. Counsel now provides an email from an ILARNG member, who states the Illinois Adjutant General does not have jurisdiction over the applicant based on his discharge. It appears the ILARNG service-member who advised counsel does not understand the process. In a records review conducted on 16 July 2021, and by a 3-2 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: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct Under the UCMJ, State Military Code or Similar Laws / NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-35i(1) / NIF / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 August 2002 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31R10, Multichannel Transmission System Operator / 8 years, 8 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 16 August 2002 to 10 March 2003 / NA ADT, 11 March 2003 to 25 July 2003 / HD ARNG, 26 July 2003 to 2 January 2005 / NA OAD, 3 January 2005 to 16 May 2006 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait and Iraq (16 May 2005 to 19 April 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFRM-M Device, ICM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 129-136, dated 9 May 2011, reflects the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective 9 May 2011. It should be noted the authority was 6-35h of National Guard Regulation 600-200, dated 31 July 2009. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, the applicant legal counsel makes reference to in his legal brief that in December of 2016, the applicant sought professional guidance related to the emotional symptoms he had been enduring since his deployment. His clinical counselor quickly diagnosed him as having PTSD and noted that he met multiple criteria for the diagnosis. She explained that his symptoms were derived from, exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways; direct exposure to threatening events, witnessing these events, chronic exposure to aversive, threatening conditions, and learning of the traumatic injuries and deaths of friends and colleagues. As a consequences of the applicant's exposure, she notes that the applicant suffers from recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories or the traumatic event(s); recurrent distressing dreams in which the contents and / or effect of the dream are related to the traumatic event; dissociative reactions such as flashbacks, intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event(s); and marked psychological reaction to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event(s). Ms. Z further explains that the applicant's PTSD manifests by negative alterations or cognition and mood. This may take the form of a persistent negative emotional state feelings of detachment or estrangement from others[or] persistent inability to experience positive emotions (e.g., happiness, satisfaction, or loving feelings). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form's 293; email's dated 22 November 2017 and 25 June 2018; and a legal brief in support of his application. The email dated 22 November 2017, makes reference to that applicant's lawyer attempting to seek information concerning the applicant's attempts to exhaust administrative remedies through the Army National Guard. The email, dated 25 June 2018, from SSG H.D., which was sent on 7 December 2017, makes reference to the applicant having been discharged from the Illinois Army National Guard in 2011; and that the Adjutant General no longer having jurisdiction over the applicant due to his previous discharge. 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 Service-member discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Service-member'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 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. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes 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. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes 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. e. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation (AR) 135-91 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard. Chapter 6 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard. 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable an upgrade of his narrative reason for separation from NGR 600-200 alcohol or other drug abuse to miscellaneous, and to upgrade his separation code to a corresponding code all based on the grounds of propriety and equity. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which reflects the applicant was not available for signature. The NGB Form 22, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, by reason of Alcohol or Other Drug, with a characterization of service of Under Honorable Conditions. The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events leading to the discharge from the ARNG. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge Orders 129-136, dated 9 May 2011. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge should be upgraded as a matter of equity considering the circumstances surrounding his separation in conjunction with his post- traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and service record. The applicant believes his characterization is unduly harsh and inequitable compared to the conduct that led to his separation, particularly considering the post-traumatic stress disorder was a substantial component of that conduct. The applicant believes his characterization is inequitable because it does not accurately reflect the quality of his service during the majority of his eight-year tenure in the Illinois National Guard or his exemplary post-service conduct. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. Evidence provided by the applicant indicates on 28 December 2009, the applicant tested clinically positive for cocaine on a urinalysis administered during his battle assembly weekend. On 11 December 2010, he was clinically positive again. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant holds a diagnosis of PTSD, which could mitigate certain offenses under liberal consideration guidance. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (UNKNOWN) The Board arrived at this finding based upon the medical advisor's review of DOD and VA medical records. The applicant does not have an in-service behavioral health diagnosis. Post-service, the VA has service-connected the applicant for PTSD; however, the trauma is unknown because the VA health record contains nothing describing how the VA arrived at this conclusion. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (NO) While the applicant and counsel contend that the only misconduct for which the applicant was discharged was use of cocaine 2 times, the ADRB was not convinced that this was the applicant's only misconduct. There were two reasons for this lack of conviction. The first is that the applicant was discharged for pattern of misconduct, not for misconduct (drug abuse). The second is that the applicant's discharge packet is not present in the AMHRR, and the applicant provided only portions of the discharge packet. Therefore, the Board felt that there may be additional misconduct within the discharge packet that the applicant was unwilling to share. Because the ADRB determined that because the totality of the misconduct leading to discharge and the source of the trauma are both unknown, the Board was unable to make a determination whether the applicant's claim of PTSD excused or mitigated the misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (NO) Because the ADRB was unable to fully understand the source of the trauma that led to the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and the totality of the misconduct leading to the discharge was also unclear, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to cause the Board to overturn the separation authority's original decision. b. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge should be upgraded as a matter of equity considering the circumstances surrounding his separation in conjunction with his post- traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and service record. The applicant believes his characterization is unduly harsh and inequitable compared to the conduct that led to his separation, particularly considering the post-traumatic stress disorder was a substantial component of that conduct. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown and the evidence surrounding the PTSD diagnosis was not provided to the Board for review. Evidence provided by the applicant indicates on 28 December 2009, the applicant tested clinically positive for cocaine on a urinalysis administered during his battle assembly weekend. On 11 December 2010, he was clinically positive again. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. c. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable. The majority of the Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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. Prior Decisions Cited: AR20160000195. (1) Applicant's counsel argues in the cited case that the ADRB granted an upgrade from General (Under Honorable Conditions) to Honorable because the discharge was overly harsh compared to the misconduct that led to separation. In the cited case, the applicant was punished under Article 15 for purchasing and possessing alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, and subsequently punished again under Article 15 for failing to appear at the appointed place of duty. These two acts of misconduct led to discharge. In the cited case, the Soldier had very little experience in the Army, was never promoted, and had been serving for less than 18 months upon separation. (2) The ADRB found that the discharge of this applicant was not overly harsh. In contrast to the cited case, the applicant in this case was a Specialist (E-4) with nearly 9 years of service when separated. Further, he was separated for using an illegal drug on multiple occasions, and potentially other misconduct as well, contrasted with the misconduct of the cited case, which involved purchase of alcohol, which was legal to many peers of the cited Soldier's case, and one instance of failure to report. Finally, given that the chain of command was unaware of the applicant's PTSD diagnosis at the time, the discharge was not overly harsh at the time. Without a more complete understanding of the source of trauma leading to the PTSD diagnosis or the full extent of the misconduct leading to the applicant's discharge, the Board found a preponderance of the available evidence did not support a finding that the discharge was overly harsh. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because of the lack of evidence surrounding the separation and PTSD diagnosis. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents, witnesses, or explanations of the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge because, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no proof of BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / 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: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY: While the Board found your separation was both proper and equitable; as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) found sufficient evidence to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable. Therefore, your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will be corrected by issuing you a new DD Form 214 changing the characterization of service to Honorable. 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 AR20200000080 1