1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 March 2020 b. Date Received: 16 March 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was suffering from anxiety/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was self-medicating. He has recently been diagnosed by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) with PTSD and granted service connection for combat related PTSD. In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted on 7 June 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 10 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Applicant waived legal counsel on 1 October 2015. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 October 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 September 2012 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11C, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 2 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / SWA / Afghanistan (22 August 2013 to 27 March 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 101 days: Confinement Military Authorities, 24 April 2015 to 29 July 2015 / NIF; and, AWOL, 30 July 2015 to 5 August 2015 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 10 February 2020, reflects the applicant was granted service connection for treatment purposes only for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, Letter from VA, dated 11 February 2020, VA Rating Decision, dated 10 February 2010. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends he was suffering from anxiety/PTSD and was self-medicating. There are no documents in the AMHRR indicating an anxiety/PTSD diagnosis. The applicant contends he has recently been diagnosed by the VA with PTSD and granted service connection for combat related PTSD. The applicant presented a VA rating decision from February 2020 indicating that he is service-connected for PTSD for treatment only. 8. 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. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of "3." 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): N/A b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. 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 applicant submitted a civilian evaluation, which diagnosed PTSD. The ADRB's Behavioral Health Advisor, a voting member of the board, determined that this diagnosis was void, because the applicant was dishonest to the evaluator. Specifically, the applicant withheld pre-service misconduct, in-service misconduct, true basis for separation, etc.; the evaluator did not have the factual information, rather a self-report geared toward a certain outcome. Irrespective of whether or not the current PTSD diagnosis listed in the supplied VA letter is a facially valid diagnosis or not, the basis for separation noted in the medical record, primarily drug distribution, is not mitigated by PTSD. Specifically, drug distribution entails a purposeful, conscious, and thought-out series of steps over time to obtain a goal which is uncharacteristic of PTSD. Accordingly, if the basis for separation in the medical record is accepted, even when applying liberal consideration, the Board's Medical Advisor opined, and the ADRB concurred, that the applicant's misconduct is not mitigated. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) The applicant submitted a February 2020 VA Rating Decision indicating he is service-connected for PTSD for treatment purposes. However, the applicant did not submit all the paperwork and the diagnosis of PTSD reflected in the C&P examination is not based on the all the factual information. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (NO) Since the separation packet was not provided by the applicant nor included in permanent records, the Board used the separation listed in medical documentation, drug distribution, as the basis for separation. The ADRB concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that drug distribution is misconduct that requires conscious forethought and planning, and that these are not associated with PTSD symptoms, and the evidence of record supports this opinion. PTSD causes individuals to self-medicate, avoid situations that remind them of their trauma, or be disrespectful or angry. The Board liberally considered the applicant's service records, evidence provided, and the purported diagnosis of PTSD and found the applicant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that it excused or mitigated the misconduct resulting in the discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (NO) The ADRB, applying liberal consideration found that the applicant's deliberate choices, clear forethought, and rationalization are not attributable to the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and, as such, did not outweigh the discharge. b. The applicant contends he was suffering from anxiety/PTSD and was self-medicating which led to his separation from the Army. While the applicant's record is void of the specific circumstances surrounding the discharge, documents contained in the applicant's medical record indicate that the likely reason for discharge is drug distribution. The ADRB accepted this as the reason, and further found that PTSD had no impact on the deliberate choices, clear forethought, and rationalization associated with drug distribution for which medical records indicate the applicant was separated from the Army. c. The applicant contends he has recently been diagnosed by the VA with PTSD and granted service connection for combat related PTSD. The applicant presented a VA rating decision from February 2020 indicating that he is service-connected for PTSD for treatment only. The ADRB found that the VA's service connection for PTSD was likely driven by a civilian BH diagnosis of PTSD in which the applicant was not forthright with the evaluator, which invalidates the diagnosis in the eyes of the board. However, even accepting the diagnosis as facially valid and applying liberal consideration, the Board found PTSD does not mitigate or outweigh the discharge. d. The ADRB determined that the applicant's characterization of service was proper and equitable. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The ADRB voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because PTSD had no impact on the deliberate choices, clear forethought, and rationalization associated with drug distribution for which medical records indicate the applicant was separated from the Army. (2) The board voted not to change the reason because it was matches the accepted reason for discharge. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE code will not change. 11. 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: 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 AR20200005911 4