1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 May 2020 b. Date Received: 8 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant further requests an award be added to the DD Form 214 and retroactive pay and allowances. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression and anxiety while on active duty and had more than one traumatic brain injury (TBI). The applicant contends to be a victim of military sexual trauma (MST). The applicant is an ongoing victim of severe military reprisal and retaliation due to making protected communication and igniting a military whistle blower due to fraud, waste, abuse, and racism. The applicant's medical records were altered without knowledge or approval. The applicant was not given the opportunity to go to Trial Defense Services to be informed of available rights. There was inaccurate information within and throughout the discharge process. The applicant was not allowed to sign the Report of medical Assessment. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (Adjustment Disorder and PTSD due to MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635- 200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 March 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty on 24 April 2019; on or about 4 February 2020, the applicant violated Army Regulation by failing to keep a clean-shaven face while in uniform; the applicant made a false official statement on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Memorandum for Record, subject: Failure to Make an Election of Rights [Applicant], dated 19 March 2020, reflects between 9 March 2020 and 13 March 2020, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to attend Trial Defense Service and consult with a military attorney multiple times to make an Election of Rights with an attorney. On 19 March 2020, the applicant was brought to the Brigade Legal Office with an escort and provided an isolated room to facilitate communication between the applicant and a defense attorney. The applicant phone rang while in the room and the applicant's escort exited the room, granting the applicant around 20 minutes of attorney-client privilege with an attorney. The applicant and the applicant's escort then left the room. Due to the applicant's refusal to consult with an attorney, the chain of command was moving forward with the separation procedures. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 March 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 September 2017 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Bachelor's Degree / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 October 2019, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time tot h appointed place of duty on or about 24 August 2019 and on or about 25 August 2019, the applicant was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $840 pay; extra duty and restriction for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 4 April 2020. A Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation Executive Summary, dated 20 October 2020, reflects, in part, the investigation was conducted in response to allegation by the applicant that the Battalion Commander reprised against the applicant for communicating with Fort Bliss Command about Soldiers selling leave days in the battery; the applicant further alleged the command reprised against the applicant for communicating with Fort Bliss Command about CPT K having an inappropriate relationship; the applicant also alleged SSG D reprised against the applicant for communicating with Brigade Equal Opportunity Leader (EOL) about racial comments SSG D made. The 32d AAMDC IG found the applicant made one protected communication to the Fort Bliss Garrison Command and one protected communication to the 11th ADA Brigade EOL. It was found the applicant was perceived to have made an additional protected communication to the Fort Bliss Garrison Command. It was found that one unfavorable personnel action was threatened against the applicant and no favorable personnel actions were withheld from the applicant. It was not substantiated the allegation CPT K threatened to not sign the Complainant's Chaplain Candidacy packet or that he threatened to bar the applicant from reenlistment for the perceived protected communication; it was not substantiated the allegations the SSG L delayed the submission of the applicant's Chaplain Candidacy packet, threatened to get rid of the applicant, or prevented the applicant from taking leave in reprisal for perceived communication; it was no substantiated SSG G threatened to get rid of the applicant for reprisal for perceived protected communication. A search of the Army criminal file indexes revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from VA, dated 28 May 2021, which reflects, in part the applicant has a 70-percent disability rating for PTSD with alcohol abuse and TBI and 50-percent for post-traumatic migraine headaches associated with TBI. (2) AMHRR Listed: A report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 28 February 2020, reflects the applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with acute adjustment disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD For rm 149, personal statements, Record of Inpatient Treatment, medical documents, Letter from the U.S. Army Inspector General Agency, dated 13 February 2020, with allied documents, Physical Profile Record-3, Eyewear Prescriptions, Certificate of Completion-3, text messages, Certificate of Training-2, Security Clearance Verification, Patient Appointment Display, Report of Medical Assessment, ARCOM Certificate, DA Form 638, Counseling Statement, emails, Leave and Earning Statement, Memorandum For Record, subject: Enlisted Discharge Process ..., dated 7 January 2019, Memorandum, subject: Appointment as Reserve Commissioned Officer....., dated 19 September 2019, VA Letter 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 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 14-12c, 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and major depression and anxiety while on active duty and had more than one TBI. The applicant's AMHRR contains evidence of an in-service diagnosis of acute adjustment disorder. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 28 February 2020, which reflects the applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant provides a letter from VA, dated 28 May 2021, which reflects, in part the applicant has a 70-percent disability rating for PTSD with alcohol abuse and TBI and 50-percent for post- traumatic migraine headaches associated with TBI. The applicant contends, in effect, to be a victim of MST. A search of the Army criminal file indexes revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant is an ongoing victim of severe military reprisal and retaliation due to making protected communication and igniting a military whistle blower due to fraud, waste, abuse, and racism. The 32d AAMDC IG found the applicant made one protected communication to the Fort Bliss Garrison Command and one protected communication to the 11th ADA Brigade EOL. It was found the applicant was perceived to have made an additional protected communication to the Fort Bliss Garrison Command. It was found that one unfavorable personnel action was threatened against the applicant and no favorable personnel actions were withheld from the applicant. It was not substantiated the allegation CPT K threatened to not sign the Complainant's Chaplain Candidacy packet or that he threatened to bar the applicant from reenlistment for the perceived protected communication; it was not substantiated the allegations the SSG L delayed the submission of the applicant's Chaplain Candidacy packet, threatened to get rid of the applicant, or prevented the applicant from taking leave in reprisal for perceived communication; it was no substantiated SSG G threatened to get rid of the applicant for reprisal for perceived protected communication. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's medical records were altered without knowledge or approval. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was not given the opportunity to go to Trial Defense Services to be informed of available rights. Memorandum for Record, subject: Failure to Make an Election of Rights [Applicant], dated 19 March 2020, reflects between 9 March 2020 and 13 March 2020, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to attend Trial Defense Service and consult with a military attorney multiple times to make an Election of Rights with an attorney. On 19 March 2020, the applicant was brought to the Brigade Legal Office with an escort and provided an isolated room to facilitate communication between the applicant and a defense attorney. The applicant phone rang while in the room and the applicant's escort exited the room, granting the applicant around 20 minutes of attorney-client privilege with an attorney. The applicant and the applicant's escort then left the room. Due to the applicant's refusal to consult with an attorney, the chain of command was moving forward with the separation procedures. The applicant contends, in effect, there was inaccurate information within and throughout the discharge process and was not allowed to sign the Report of medical Assessment. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends, in effect, there was honorable service despite all the applicant endured. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant requests for an award to be added the DD Form 214 and retroactive pay and allowances does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends, in effect, the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635- 200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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: In-service the applicant held multiple diagnosis which ultimately was determined to be false with final determination he had an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is service connected for PTSD due to MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. In-service the applicant held multiple diagnosis which ultimately was determined to be false with final determination he had an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is service connected for PTSD due to MST. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's diagnosis and MST partially mitigate the basis for separation. Specifically, given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance and difficulty with authority disrespect, FTR, and violating grooming standards. The applicant's false official statements do not reflect avoidance or difficulty with authority, rather understanding conscious choices were going to have consequences and attempt to avoid consequences which reflect intact cognitive abilities. However, per liberal consideration the Board must weigh the MST against the unmitigated misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD from MST outweighed the FTRs, failed to keep a clean-shaven face, making false official statements and misconduct basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and major depression and anxiety while on active duty and had more than one TBI. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST fully outweighing the applicant's misconduct basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends to be a victim of MST. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD from MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct. (3) The applicant contends the applicant is an ongoing victim of severe military reprisal and retaliation due to making protected communication and igniting a military whistle blower due to fraud, waste, abuse, and racism. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST fully outweighing the applicant's misconduct basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends the applicant's medical records were altered without knowledge or approval. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST fully outweighing the applicant's misconduct basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends there was inaccurate information within and throughout the discharge process. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST fully outweighing the applicant's misconduct basis for separation. (6) The applicant contends the applicant was not allowed to sign the Report of medical Assessment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD due to MST fully outweighing the applicant's misconduct basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (Adjustment Disorder and PTSD due to MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD due to MST mitigated the applicant's misconduct FTRs, failed to keep a clean-shaven face, making false official statements. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: RE-1 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20200006213 1