1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 February 2020 b. Date Received: 10 March 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were PTSD and other mental health issues and conditions related to the request for an upgrade to the discharge received. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 April 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's multiple combat tours and PTSD and TBI outweighing the alcohol-related portions of applicant's misconduct leading to separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The board determined the narrative reason for separation, separation code and reentry eligibility (RE) code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: Alcohol / Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being released from ASAP program prior to completion and classified as an ASAP failure. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) and on 28 March 2012, the intermediate commander recommended an honorable characterization of service. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 March 2012 / The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived legal counsel therefore waiving the right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 April 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 9 years, 10 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 November 2001 - 25 July 2004 / HD RA, 26 July 2004 - 6 April 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 February 2003 - 15 February 2004), Iraq (26 October 2006 - 23 November 2007), Afghanistan (23 February 2009 - 21 February 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-4, VUA, AGCM-3, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2006 - 31 May 2009 / Fully Capable 1 June 2009 - 10 February 2011 / Fully Capable 11 February 2011 - 3 January 2012 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Eight Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct in that the applicant committed domestic violence as a result of severe intoxication on 2 September 2011, failure to complete the Army Substance Abuse Program, and drug paraphernalia found in the applicant's possession on 11 April 2011. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, dated 13 October 2011, reflects the applicant was command-referred into the ASAP program. Warrant for Arrest, dated 2 September 2011, from the State of North Carolina reflects the applicant was arrested for the crime of assault on a female. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 3 April 2012, reflects the applicant's rehabilitation team met on 20 January 2012, and declared the applicant an ASAP rehabilitation failure due to lack of progress and lack of motivation to overcome his alcohol problem. Continued transitional services including counseling and referral to the VA were offered and the applicant refused. The applicant was, therefore, released from the program on that date and determined he had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, para 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified considering the applicant's lack of progress. Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 January 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Medically cleared for separation i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant-provided and/or AMHRR-listed Behavioral Health Conditions: Report of Medical History, dated 18 January 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety, depression, and has received and extensive amount of counseling for drinking and anger issues. Medical condition or experience: Adjustment DO with anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol Abuse; Alcohol Dependence; Alcohol Intoxication; Anxiety DO NOS; Chronic PTSD; Depression; Marital Problems; Partner Relational Problems; Nicotine Dependence; Other Family Circumstances. VA: Schizophrenia; PTSD (80% Service Connected). 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (5) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates on 3 April 2012, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), was informed that due to a lack of engagement in treatment the applicant progress was deemed unsatisfactory. On 20 January 2012, during a rehabilitation team meeting, the 1SG declared the applicant an ASAP rehabilitation failure due to a lack of progress and motivation to overcome the alcohol Continued transitional services including counseling and referral to the VA was offered, however, the applicant refused and was released from the program.. The applicant contends there was PTSD and other mental health issues and conditions related to the request for an upgrade to the discharge received. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis, however the Report of Medical History, dated 18 January 2012, shows the examining medical physician noted in the comments section "Anxiety, depression, and has received an extensive amount of counseling for drinking and anger issues". The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's check marks on the DD Form 293, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 23 July 2021, requesting documentation to support a PTSD and other mental health diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. 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/experiences: Traumatic Brain Injury; Adjustment DO with anxiety and depressed mood; Anxiety Disorder; Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; Depression. VA: Schizophrenia; PTSD (70% service connected). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board Medical Advisor found that the diagnosis of PTSD and Anxiety DO NOS was made while applicant was on active duty. VA service connection for PTSD (70% SC) establishes it occurred during military service. (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's PTSD mitigates the applicant's rehab failure because there is a nexus between self- medication and PTSD. However, the applicant's PTSD, Depression, TBI, and Anxiety DO do not mitigate the applicant's offense of possessing drug paraphernalia or domestic violence given those conditions do 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. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant's PTSD and TBI medically mitigated the applicant's ASAP-failure discharge, the applicant's PTSD and TBI did not outweigh the applicant's medically unmitigated Domestic Violence arrest documented in applicant's OMPF, which was considered by the separation authority for purposes of characterization of service IAW AR 635-200, paragraph 1- 16e(2). b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends there were PTSD and other mental health issues or conditions related to the discharge received. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's behavioral health conditions do not outweigh the applicant's Domestic Violence and drug paraphernalia misconduct. However, the Board did find that the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's multiple combat tours and PTSD and TBI outweighing the alcohol-related portions of the misconduct leading to separation. Therefore, the Board ultimately determined that a discharge upgrade is warranted. c. By a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's multiple combat tours and PTSD and TBI outweighing the alcohol-related portions of misconduct leading to separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because portions of the applicant's misconduct were mitigated by applicant's PTSD and the totality of applicant's service record warranted upgrade. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate (2) The Board voted not to change the reason for discharge as the applicant did fail alcohol rehabilitation. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Cchange 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 AR20200005500 1