1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 27 March 2020 b. Date Received: 1 April 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, the discharge received was for patterns of misconduct, but the applicant served the country well. The applicant was diagnosed with a mental disorder while stationed in Germany. The applicant had five incidents that happened in a span of six months in 2014. The applicant states the applicant doesn’t think these things would have happened if the applicant didn’t have a mental disorder. The applicant was also diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder at a rating of 100 percent in March of 2019. The applicant’s friend told him about the Kurta Memo, which will help Veterans who are trying to upgrade their discharge if they had mental disorders. The applicant has lost jobs and the GI Bill due to the disorder. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 May 2023, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 21 January 2014, the applicant failed to report to 0745 hearing booth; on 7 February 2014, the applicant failed to report to 0630 physical training; on 3 April 2014, the applicant failed to report to 0430 accountability formation; on 7 April 2014, the applicant unlawfully struck Private First Class H. in the face with a closed fist; and on 25 June 2014, the applicant attempted to unlawfully enter Rose Barracks while having unauthorized personnel in the trunk of his vehicle. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / However, Orders 029-0005 dated 29 January 2015, discharged the applicant from the Army with an effective date: 18 February 2015. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Memorandum For Record, dated 8 April 2014, reflects the applicants off post privileges were revoked due to the lack of judgement displayed in personal and professional standards of behavior. Military Police Desk Blotter, dated 25 June 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with attempted trespassing of a civilian and failure to obey order and physical security regulation (AER 600-1 and AE 190-16). Memorandum For Record, dated 26 June 2014, reflects the applicant was ordered not to drive effective immediately and the applicant’s license was revoked. Off post pass privileges were revoked as well. This was due to the applicant’s lack of judgement displayed in personal and professional standards of behavior. Military Police Desk Blotter, dated 1 July 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with simple assault - consummated by a battery (Article 128, UCMJ). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 August 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 7 March 2019, shows the applicant was rated 100 percent for intermittent explosive disorder (also claimed as personality and mental health disorder with anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and alcohol abuse. 5. Applicant-Provided Evidence: DD Form 149; medical documents; Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision; one third-party letter; copies of military personnel records; DD Form 214; updated address correspondence. 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 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the applicant was diagnosed with a mental adjustment disorder in 2014. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of mental adjustment disorder diagnosis. The applicant did, however, submit a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 7 March 2019, showing the applicant was rated 100 percent for intermittent explosive disorder (also claimed as personality and mental health disorder with anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and alcohol abuse. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 August 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and could recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 diagnosis: The applicant had an in- service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and a confirmed offender of intimate partner violence (IPV). Post-service, the applicant is 100% service connected for Adjustment Disorder; although the submitted rating letters lists Intermittent Explosive Disorder, this is subsumed. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant had an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and a confirmed offender of IPV. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder is not mitigating as it is a low level difficulty adjusting or coping with stressors that does not rise to the level of impacting cognitive decision making. The applicant’s intact cognitive abilities are supported by both in-service and post-service documentation to include denial of caregiver benefits as the applicant can manage himself. Accordingly, there is no medical mitigation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s adjustment disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Pattern of Misconduct: multiple FTRs, unlawfully striking another Soldier, and attempt to unlawfully enter a military installation with an unauthorized person – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By committing the misconducts of – multiple FTRs, battery, unlawfully striking another Soldier, and attempt to unlawfully enter a military installation with an unauthorized person, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was diagnosed with a mental adjustment disorder in 2014. The Board considered this contention and found that the applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of mental adjustment disorder diagnosis. The applicant did, however, submit a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 7 March 2019, showing the applicant was rated 100 percent for intermittent explosive disorder (also claimed as personality and mental health disorder with anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and alcohol abuse. The AMHRR also shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 August 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and could recognize right from wrong. 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. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further. assistance. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 there were no in service mitigating factors for the Board to consider which might outweigh the applicant’s misconduct – multiple FTRs, unlawfully striking another Soldier, and attempt to unlawfully enter a military installation with an unauthorized person. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20200006315 1