1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 March 2020 b. Date Received: 7 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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the justifying reasons for changing the narrative reason for the discharge are: (1) According to US ARMY Directive 2019-12 (Policy for Voluntary Alcoholic-Related Behavioral Healthcare), dated 25 Mar 2019, paragraph 4c(4), which reads “Discontinuation of voluntary alcohol-related behavioral healthcare for any reason will not be considered a rehabilitation failure. A history of voluntary alcohol-related behavioral healthcare, including discontinuation of this care, cannot be used as a basis for administrative separation.” The applicant’s administrative separation actions in the military records are in exact contrast to current policies. The spirit of the memorandum is to stop the exact administrative action taken against the applicant and to allow Soldiers to seek help without suddenly ruining the careers. (2) There are no records showing a corrective action, but a pattern of success and achievements as indicated by the character references. (3) The undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and other traumas significantly contributed to the discharge. The out-processing report reflects not identified as having PTSD or TBI, although the Veteran Affairs reflects high levels of both. The undiagnosed PTSD and TBI resulted from significant injuries during training accidents and combat situations which resulted in being awarded a Combat Infantryman's Badge and Purple Heart, and the tremendous loss of comrades both in Afghanistan and in suicides. (4) Since the discharge, having exemplary conduct in civilian life, graduating from the Georgetown University, successfully owning, and operating a high-end security firm which works often with international politicians and VIPs, being happily married and expecting the first child in July 2020, and having taken part in counseling with the VA and in an intensive counseling program called Warrior PATHH. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 30 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 10 May 2013, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP as the result of self-referral. Since the enrollment, the applicant made admissions of alcohol use. On 30 May 2013, it was determined during a Rehabilitation Team Meeting, the applicant failed to achieve satisfactory progress for having consumed alcohol since being enrolled in ASAP, making the applicant not retainable in the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 8 August 2013, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 September 2013 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 June 2010 / 3 years, extended on 22 November 2011 (extension erroneously relates to the 6 July 2006 enlistment, but reflects a new ETS date of 30 June 2015) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 7 years, 2 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 July 2006 – 31 May 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 July 2009 – 29 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2010 – 31 January 2011 / Among the Best 1 February 2011 – 9 January 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 17 June 2013, reflects the applicant’s rehabilitation team meeting on 30 May 2013, determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified considering the applicant’s lack of progress. Discharge from military service should be initiated. i. 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; self-authored statement; Army Directive 2019-12 with Policy for Voluntary Alcohol-Related Behavioral Healthcare; and DD Forms 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states having exemplary conduct in civilian life, graduating from the Georgetown University, successfully owning, and operating a high-end security firm, being happily married, and being in counseling with the VA and Warrior PATHH. 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 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10-13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to “Honorable” if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy includes: Results of command-directed drug or alcohol testing that are inadmissible under the MRE; Results of a drug or alcohol test collected solely as part of a safety mishap investigation undertaken for accident analysis and the development of countermeasures; Information concerning drug or alcohol abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use, including the results of a drug or alcohol test, collected as a result of a Soldier’s emergency medical care solely for an actual or possible alcohol or other drug overdose; A Soldier’s self-referral to BH for SUD (Substance Use Disorder) treatment; Admissions and other information concerning alcohol or other drug abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use occurring prior to the date of initial referral to treatment and provided by Soldiers as part of their initial entry into SUD treatment; Drug or alcohol test results, if the Soldier voluntarily submits to a DoD or Army SUD treatment before the Soldier has received an order to submit for a lawful drug or alcohol test; and, the results of a drug or alcohol test administered solely as a required part of a DoD or Army SUD treatment program. e. 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) Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (4) Paragraph 9-4 stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. f. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JPD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. g. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests 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 evidence of AMHRR indicates on 30 May 2013, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Program Manager/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant failed to achieve satisfactory progress for having consumed alcohol since enrollment in ASAP, making the applicant not retainable in the Army and further rehabilitation efforts cannot be justified, requiring discharge from military service to be initiated. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “alcohol rehabilitation failure,” and the separation code is “JPD.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the administrative separation actions in the record are in contrast with the policies of the Army Directive (AD) 2019-12, specifically, paragraph 4c(4). However, the provisions of the directive, dated 25 March 2019, incorporated into the current AR 600-85 specifically addresses policy for voluntary alcohol-related behavioral healthcare, which became effective immediately then, and it provides for distinguishing voluntary behavioral healthcare from mandatory enrolled substance abuse treatment while encouraging Soldiers to seek help earlier and improve readiness. Based on policies in effect during the applicant’s enrollment in ASAP and subsequent discharge, the applicant’s available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends having no records of corrective actions, but a pattern of success and achievements as indicated by the character references. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant did not submit any evidence of character references. The applicant contends undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and other traumas significantly contributed to the discharge, which were identified as being high level by VA. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD and TBI diagnoses. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., medical diagnoses of the medical conditions by a competent medical authority) for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends having exemplary conduct in civilian life, graduating from the Georgetown University, successfully owning, and operating a high-end security firm, being happily married, and being in counseling with the VA and Warrior PATHH. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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: ADHD, Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, PTSD and TBI. The applicant holds an additional diagnosis of ADHD with additional concerns for either Bipolar Disorder or Personality Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. the applicant held in-service diagnoses of ADHD, Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, and Alcohol Abuse. Applicant is service-connected for PTSD and TBI. Additional concerns for either Bipolar Disorder or Personality Disorder have been present since service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The applicant is requesting a narrative reason for separation change, but there are no known liberal consideration experiences or factors supporting this change and the applicant already holds an Honorable characterization. (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 conditions warranted further relief beyond the HD/Rehab Failure currently held. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that relief is not warranted. The applicant’s narrative currently captures a rehabilitation failure due to continuing to use substances while enrolled in the program. (2) The applicant contends the administrative separation actions in the record are in contrast with the policies of the Army Directive (AD) 2019-12, specifically, paragraph 4c(4). The Board considered this contention but determined that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s intentional use of substances while enrolled in the program required discharge due to further rehab not being recommended at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends having no records of corrective actions, but a pattern of success and achievements as indicated by the character references. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s current narrative reason for discharge outweighed the applicant’s totality of service and the character references. (4) The applicant contends undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and other traumas significantly contributed to the discharge, which were identified as being high level by VA. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s conditions did not warrant further relief, since the applicant did not successfully complete the ASAP program. (5) The applicant contends having exemplary conduct in civilian life, graduating from the Georgetown University, successfully owning, and operating a high-end security firm, being happily married, and being in counseling with the VA and Warrior PATHH. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case- by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments did not warrant further relief, since the applicant did not successfully complete the ASAP program c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. The applicant failed to complete the ASAP program and was deemed a failure due to continued alcohol use while enrolled. (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 AR20200006645 1