1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 March 2020 b. Date Received: 3 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, 2015 was a rough year for the applicant, because of the following issues: (1) severe TBI leading to seizures and inability to perform the job; (2) the suicide of a parent and a brother (both were service members); (3) coming out as gay and becoming a target to others whom the applicant was serving with; (4) being a victim in a sexual assault incident, which involved CID (criminal investigation division) and resulted in an expedited transfer out of the 82nd; and (5) after receiving a demotion and being transferred, the target remained and the new unit was equally unsupportive. Because of the circumstances of the investigation, the new unit was not informed of why the applicant, a new Soldier, received orders and showed up at random one day. The new unit only knew of the applicant's seizures and being unable to perform any duties related to the MOS. Understandably, the unit was not happy with a slot being taken up by a "'useless medic'" who had numerous appointments and without further information. It took a long time before the applicant sought help for any of the issues because of losing faith in the system and poor leadership. The applicant also received HIV from the assault. After being demoted and being the target, the applicant was finally able to review the life. After becoming stabilized medically, the applicant would like to correct things requiring corrections. It is unfortunate the applicant is unable to continue military service even with an upgrade to honorable and to be discharged as a private when the applicant was so good and passionate about serving. However, the applicant is in no way indicating being a saint because of not showing up or being late a few times. The applicant went through many extraordinary circumstances topped with the support chain either abandoning or worsening things. It was not until after being in the VA psych ward for a few months when the applicant began the long road of recovery. The applicant was always the best medic the unit had, always on top at PT, teaching the PA and updating SOPs, and leading training. All the events which occurred were uncharacteristic of the applicant. The board should consider all the events leading to the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 05 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS with MST. The applicant is also 100% service connected for PTSD secondary to MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct. 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 maintain the reentry code RE-3. 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: 6 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 8 January 2015, the applicant wrongfully appropriated one Tramadol tablet from 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment aide station without authority and without a valid prescription. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 6 October 2015, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W1P, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 9 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 19 April 2013. The applicant was charged with The Charge. The summary of the offense, plea, and findings are: Violation of Article 92, the applicant was derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to perform the duties as a combat medic by falling asleep in the rear field litter ambulance and not completing the company 20-mile ruck march on (dates NIF). Sentence: Reduction to Private (E-2); hard labor for 14 days without confinement; and restriction for 14 days. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant had no time lost. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 9 November 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 31 July 2015; was ineligible for reenlistment due to Pending Separation (9V). The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-2, effective 15 January 2015. CID Report of Investigation - Investigative Summary, dated 16 February 2015, reflects an investigation was established on 11 December 2014, of a reported first-degree sexual offense. The applicant identified as a victim, was sexually assaulted by an unknown individual, between 2100 hours, 17 May 2014, and 0300 hours 18 May 2014, and remained under investigation at the time, by the Greenville Police Department in North Carolina. h. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 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 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 prescribes 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. 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 Resources Record (AMHRR) and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends coping with a severe TBI led to seizures and affected the job performance. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of TBI diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, 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 26 July 2021, requesting documentation to support a TBI diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. The applicant contends family issues, such as the suicide of a parent and a brother, affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being a sexual assault victim. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The ARBA obtained a CID Report of Investigation on 14 February 2023, which reflects the applicant was a victim of a sexual assault incident by an unknown individual between 17 and 18 May 2014, and had remained under investigation by a civilian police department when reported on 11 December 2014. The applicant contends the units not being supportive, while going through many extra ordinary circumstances, the support chain were either abandoning or worsening things. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant's available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends having received HIV from the assault. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of HIV diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends being so good and passionate about serving, and was always the best medic the unit had, always top at PT, teaching the PA and updating SOPs, and leading training. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, it is unknown if the contentions have merit because the applicant did not provide any supporting evidence. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the complete discharge packet, medical diagnosis of TBI and HIV by a competent medical authority, and an investigative report on the sexual assault, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would still be the applicant's responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the complete discharge packet and medical diagnoses are not available in the official record. 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: the applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST in May 2014. The applicant is 100% service connected for PTSD secondary to MST. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST in May 2014. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and substance use, the basis for separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST, and PTSD secondary to MST outweighed the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully appropriated one Tramadol tablet without authority and without a valid prescription basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board found validity in this contention and voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service as well as narrative reason for discharge to base on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST, and PTSD secondary to MST outweighing the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully appropriated one Tramadol tablet without authority and without a valid prescription basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends coping with a severe TBI led to seizures and affected the job performance. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outline in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). (3) The applicant contends family issues, such as the suicide of a parent and a brother, affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outline in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). (4) The applicant contends being a sexual assault victim. The Board determined that this contention was valid during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outline in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). (5) The applicant contends the units not being supportive, while going through many extra ordinary circumstances, the support chain was either abandoning or worsening things. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence that the applicant command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner other than the applicant's statement. However, the Board voted that relief was warranted based on other circumstances as outlined above in 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). (6) The applicant contends having received HIV from the assault. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's asserted medical condition of having contracted HIV from the assault. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. However, the Board voted that relief was warranted based on other circumstances as outlined above in 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). (7) The applicant contends being so good and passionate about serving, and was always the best medic the unit had, always top at PT, teaching the PA and updating SOPs, and leading training. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outline in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1). c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST, and PTSD secondary to MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct. 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS with confirmed MST, and PTSD secondary to MST outweighed the applicant's misconduct - wrongfully appropriated one Tramadol tablet without authority and without a valid prescription. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriates. (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 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change 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 AR20200006507 1