1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 May 2020 b. Date Received: 19 May 2020 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the current characterization of service is inequitable. The applicant contends that being diagnosed with PTSD and having lower back problems may have also been a contributing factor, having impaired his judgement, impaired the applicant abstract thinking, and affected the way of thinking. The applicant is not overriding what he did was wrong, because the applicant should not have been driving impaired with alcohol in his system. The applicant just wanted to point out the fact that since getting diagnosed with PTSD, the applicant mental thinking become critical and has worsen from the time the applicant father passed while the applicant was in the service. Having not being able to be there for the family and deployment, the tragic event from the accident made it harder for the applicant to control the PTSD mental disorder. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 10 March 2023, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 February 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 November 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for driving while intoxicated on 6 May 2017 and striking a white Chevrolet Impala driven by Mr. L.T.B., killing the driver and injuring the wife. The impact cause Mr. B’s vehicle to impact a guard rail and become impaled by it. The applicant left the scene of the accident and did not report it. Officers at the accident scene were alerted to the fact that a vehicle matching the description of the applicant’s vehicle was seen driving erratically, and notice that Mr. B’s vehicle had red paint on it. Officers issued a BOLO, and the applicant was stopped on Interstate 24 a short time later. The applicant vehicle had white paint on it and damage consistent with that found at the crash scene. The applicant was taken into custody, and a search warrant was issued for a blood draw. The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Crime Lab issued a toxicology report on 17 May 2017 which showed that the applicant had a blood alcohol content of .135 percent just over four hours after the accident. The applicant speed at the time of impact was estimated to be just over 88 miles per hour. The applicant intoxication and excessive speed were cited as the direct cause of the accident which took the life of Mr. B and injured the driver wife, Mrs. B. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 November 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived his right to have his case heard by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 24 January 2018, the separation authority having reviewed the separation packet, unconditional waiver, the applicant’s matters, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings, and his acts of misconduct; find the applicant’s condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation, the circumstance in the applicant’s case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings should continue. Therefore, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the US Army and the applicant service be characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 February 2016 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 1 Year College / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92F20, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 6 years, 9 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 21 July 2010 to 11 June 2014 / HD RA, 12 June 2014 to 3 December 2014 / HD RA, 4 December 2014 to 10 February 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (19 April 2014 to 18 November 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM- CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Tennessee Electronic Traffic Crash Report dated 6 May 2017, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for vehicular assault, vehicular homicide, leaving the scene of a personal injury, failure to give information/render aid, and immediate notice of accident failure. Memorandum thru Staff Judge Advocate dated 4 December 2017, “Request for IDES Discharge”, indicates the applicant requested that he be separated through medical channels IAW AR 635-200, paragraph 1-33b because the applicant was undergoing a medical separation for PTSD, anxiety, depression, and lower back issues. The PTSD, anxiety, and depression were a direct result of the applicant combat deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Furthermore, the applicant anxiety and depression were also the result of the father passing away and the applicant mother’s own mental health issues. The applicant had been receiving mental health treatment for the prior two years. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Confinement Civilian Authorities (CCA) 281 days (6 May 2017 to 10 February 2018), because of being arrested and charged with vehicular homicide by intoxication, vehicular assault, and leaving the scene of a crash involving death. j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health Condition(s): Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings: dated 28 March 2017, which indicates after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, the board found that the applicant had the following medical conditions/defects; Multilevel degenerative disc disease worst at L5-S1 and Spondylolysis with grade 1 retrolisthesis. (VA DX: Lumbar spine Degenerative Disc Disease worse at L5-S1); medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Ch: 3-39e; PTSD, Chronic, Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Ch: 3-33b, c; and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate (VA DX: None). Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40- 501, Ch: 3-32b, c. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter; several letter of support / recommendations; medical evaluation board proceedings; copy of the applicant application to the Department of Veterans Affairs requesting disability benefits; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs awarding service-connected disability; recommendation for award of the ARCOM; certificates of award and completion; documents from the Tennessee Department of Correction Transfer / Discharge mental health summary; enlisted record brief (ERB); and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since being discharged the applicant has successfully completed a nine-month Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program, obtained a nine-month certificate for attending AANA Alcoholic Anonymous meetings all while serving time in a rehabilitation center. After being released, the applicant continued to stay sober from alcohol and attend group meeting for relapse prevention, victim’s impact, and AANA Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. 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) 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) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c, states 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. 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. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for driving while intoxicated on 6 May 2017 striking the vehicle driven by Mr. L.T.B., killing the driver and injuring the driver wife. The impact cause Mr. B’s vehicle to impact a guard rail and become impaled by it. The applicant left the scene of the accident and did not report it. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that the current characterization of service is inequitable. The applicant contends that being diagnosed with PTSD and having lower back problems may have also been a contributing factor, having impaired his judgement, impaired the applicant abstract thinking, and affected the way of thinking. The applicant is not overriding what he did was wrong, because the applicant should not have been driving impaired with alcohol in his system. The applicant just wanted to point out the fact that since getting diagnosed with PTSD, the applicant mental thinking become critical and has worsen from the time the applicant father passed while the applicant was in the service. Having not being able to be there for the family and deployment, the tragic event from the accident made it harder for the applicant to control the PTSD mental disorder. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence in the AMHRR i.e., Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings: dated 28 March 2017, indicates after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, the board found that the applicant had the following medical conditions/defects; Multilevel degenerative disc disease worst at L5-S1 and Spondylolysis with grade 1 retrolisthesis. (VA DX: Lumbar spine Degenerative Disc Disease worse at L5-S1); medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Ch: 3-39e; PTSD, Chronic, Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Ch: 3-33b, c; and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate (VA DX: None). Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Ch: 3-32b, c. It should also be noted; the service record indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD related to combat and the MVA. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical condition partially mitigates the basis of separation, in that the driving while intoxicated is mitigated. However, there is no medical mitigation for the vehicle collision connected to the DUI, resulting in the death of the driver of the other vehicle, and injury to the passenger of the other vehicle. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUI resulting in injury and death. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending that his current characterization of service is inequitable. The applicant contends that being diagnosed with PTSD and having lower back problems may have also been a contributing factor, having impaired his judgement, impaired his abstract thinking, and affected his way of thinking. The Board considered this contention and determine that while the Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the applicant’s driving under the influence, the Board determined that given the nature and severity of the totality of the DUI incident, the applicant’s contentions do not outweigh the basis for 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(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, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUI resulting in injury and death. The Board did not consider any issues of impropriety as the applicant did not present any impropriety issue for the Board's consideration. Further, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any inequity. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20200005298 1