1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 23 April 2020 b. Date Received: 5 May 2020 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 16-7 (Early separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints), Separation Program Designator (SPD) code to JCC (Reduction in Force), and narrative reason to early separation. The applicant through counsel, seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant has suffered under the weight of a less-than-honorable discharge because of traumatic events the applicant experienced during active duty. Therefore, the applicant requests the Army Discharge Review Board to review the discharge for equity and thereafter make corrections to the applicant’s record. The applicant, a veteran Army Special Forces Medical Sergeant served nine honorable years including combat tours in Iraq, Djibouti, Niger, Somalia, and Estonia, earned numerous awards, and received outstanding noncommissioned officer evaluation reports. While serving in Iraq, the applicant suffered two traumatic brain injuries (“TBI”) leading to substantial post- traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). As a result of ignorance of the applicant’s mental health condition, the applicant was involved in a domestic violence incident. Under 30 C.F.R 70.9, 10 U.S.C. 1553, the Kurta and Wilkie Memorandums, the applicant's mental health mitigates the applicant’s discharge, and the prior honorable service should be given liberal consideration by the Board. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI on 25 July 2018 by the Veterans Affairs (VA) during a compensation and pension examination. The applicant’s counsel claims the applicant’s PTSD and TBI may excuse or mitigate the applicant’s discharge. The applicant’s PTSD and TBI occurred during military service while in Iraq and Somalia. The applicant’s PTSD symptoms, such as persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs and distrust culminated in the domestic abuse actions that prompted the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, liberal consideration must be given in that the applicant’s condition mitigated or excused the discharge. The applicant’s PTSD and TBIs should outweigh the discharge. Prior to the applicant’s military service and deployment to Iraq, the applicant did not suffer from any major behavioral issues. PTSD inherently affects one’s behavior and choices, causing veterans to think and behave differently than otherwise expected. Except for the TBIs and PTSD resulting in one-time misconduct, the applicant’s service was meritorious and honorable to the United States of America and the Army. The applicant’s TBI and PTSD diagnoses and symptoms outweigh the discharge. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 11 September 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 June 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, H__ M. V__, by unlawfully throwing down, putting hands around throat and mouth, restricting ability to breathe. On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, H__ M. V__, by unlawfully striking in the face with the back of hand, causing spouse to fall on the ground, which resulted in bleeding. On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, H__ M. V__, by unlawfully striking multiple times in the side and back of the head. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 June 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 20 June 2017, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 27 July 2017, the separation authority approved the applicant’s conditional waiver. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2015 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / 2 years college / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 18D3P, Special Forces Medical Sergeant / 11 years, 3 months, 23 days a. Prior Service / Characterizations: AF-ANGUS, Period of Enlistment / NIF AF-ANGUS IADT, 21 June 05 - 28 February 06 / HD AF-ANGUS, 1 March 2006 - 15 July 2007 / NIF RA, 16 July 2007 – 15 October 2015 / HD b. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Djibouti, Niger, Somalia, Estonia, SWA / Iraq (26 April 2008 - 15 July 2009) d. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5, AAM-9, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, CAB c. Performance Ratings: 21 July 2015 - 31 December 2015 / Among the Best 1 January 2016 - 27 July 2016 / Not Qualified 28 July 2016 - 10 December 2016 / Qualified d. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Wisconsin Circuit Court documents, 27 July 2016, reflects three counts of charges: Count 1, Strangulation and Suffocation, Domestic Abuse; Count 2, Misdemeanor Battery, Domestic Abuse; and Count 3, Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, 16 February 2017, reflects on 24 July 2016, the applicant hit spouse after a verbal argument at the spouse’s family home in Merrillan, Wisconsin. During this attack, the applicant strangled the spouse and attempted to suffocate. Further, the applicant hit the spouse multiple times in the face and head causing the spouse to fall to the ground bleeding from the lip and nose. The applicant did all of this in the driveway and street in front of the in-law’s home, as the spouse’s parents watched in horror. Report of Medical Examination, 8 May 2017, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Difficulty sleeping and recommended further examination with behavioral health for consult to evaluate for PTSD. Report of Medical History, 8 May 2017, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Difficulty sleeping, nightmares, yelling in sleep, and work-related dreams. Consult to behavioral health for evaluation. Report of Medical Assessment, 30 June 2017, reflects the applicant intends to seek Department of VA disability for a mTBI. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: See DD Form 2807 (2807-1) (Report of Medical History), in the following block it states referred for further evaluation for TBI clinic, imaging, and laboratory. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 11 October 2017, reflects the applicant was flagged for elimination - field initiated (BA), effective 18 April 2017, “delay of promotion or consideration for removal” from a command, promotion, or school selection list (FA), effective 14 February 2017 adverse action (AA), effective 1 February 2017, and law enforcement investigation (MA), effective 30 January 2017; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. FLAGS / AEA codes: BA, FA, AA, MA / L RE/Prohibition codes: 9V e. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating decision, 7 November 2018, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD with adjustment disorder, anxiety and mid neurocognitive disorder due to TBI. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 12 May 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant was screened for and did not meet criteria for depressive disorder, PTSD or substance use disorder, however, the applicant had a referral to WRC Neurology due to the applicant’s self- report of possible TBIs during deployment to Iraq. Impulsivity was assessed normal during this session, however taking in account past behaviors impulsivity may be assessed as higher than socially acceptable. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits A through S. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently attending both University of Colorado, Colorado Springs and Pikes Peak Community College. The applicant is studying mechanical engineering with a 3.4 GPA. The applicant serves the community as an entrepreneur and started a business making custom wood items. 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. 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 through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 16-7 (Early separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints), Separation Program Designator (SPD) code to JCC, and narrative reason to early separation. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant through counsel 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 Processing and Documents, governs the 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, 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 through counsel contends, in effect, the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the 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, SPD Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant through counsel contends, the applicant’s PTSD and TBI occurred while deployed to Iraq and Somalia and was later diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The applicant provided a VA Rating Decision, 7 November 2018, that reflects a 30 percent rating for PTSD with adjustment disorder, anxiety and mid neurocognitive disorder due to TBI. The AMHRR shows the following: Applicant deployed to Iraq and Somalia. Report of Medical Examination and Report of Medical History, 8 May 2017, reflects the examining medical physician recommended further examination with behavioral health for consult to evaluate for PTSD. Report of Medical Assessment, 30 June 2017, reflects the applicant intended to seek Department of VA disability for a mTBI. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: See DD Form 2807 (2807-1) (Report of Medical History), in the following block it states referred for further evaluation for TBI clinic, imaging, and laboratory. The applicant’s MSE, 12 May 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant was screened for and did not meet criteria for depressive disorder, PTSD or substance use disorder, however, the applicant had a referral to WRC Neurology due to the applicant’s self-report of possible TBIs during deployment to Iraq. Impulsivity was assessed normal during this session, however taking in account past behaviors impulsivity may be assessed as higher than socially acceptable. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant through counsel contends, the event which led to the discharge from the Army was a one-time misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5 in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant through counsel contends, prior to the applicant’s military service and deployment to Iraq, the applicant did not suffer from any major behavioral issues. The applicant provided a Mental Disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 27 August 2018, and Review Evaluation of Residual of TBI Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 29 October 2018 that reflects prior to joining the military the applicant was diagnosed and treated for Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The applicant through counsel contends, meritorious service, including multiple combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant through counsel contends, being the owner of a business and attending two schools. The Army Discharge Review Board 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 may 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The applicant’s in-laws have forgiven the applicant; however, they do recognize the seriousness of the applicant’s actions. In the 8 years that they have known the applicant, the applicant has been a committed Soldier and has taken pride in a career with the U.S. Army. The applicant’s spouse states the applicant has attended numerous counseling's, domestic violence classes, personal counseling, and marital counseling. Their marriage is stronger than ever, and they continue to grow together each and every day. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): N/A b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): N/A c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): Applicant and counsel (Ms. S.G. and Ms. M.C.) provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence. 10. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The 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: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that mild TBI was diagnosed during military service. VA service connection for PTSD establishes it either occurred or began during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition. While the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD and TBI, neither one of these conditions mitigates the offense of physically assaulting and strangling applicant’s spouse as neither one of these conditions affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Rarely, flashbacks associated with PTSD can lead to spontaneous, short-lived, and random acts of simple assault. However, in the applicant’s case, there is no evidence that the misconduct was due to a contemporaneous combat-related flashback experience given that the applicant’s act of domestic violence was not spontaneous (it occurred because of an escalation during a domestic altercation), the applicant’s choice of victim was not accidental or random and there is no evidence the misconduct represented a re- enactment of previous combat trauma. Regarding the history of mild TBI, this, too, does not mitigate the misconduct. It is well established in the professional literature that full recovery from mild TBI is all but an absolute certainty. Any persistence of TBI symptoms beyond a natural recovery period is most likely due to other factors such as chronic pain, lack of sleep and BH conditions. Given that the SM’s reported mild TBIs occurred 8-9 years before the misconduct, any associated residuals would have resolved at this point and any remaining symptoms were due to other factors. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was a one-time incident. The Board considered this contention but determined that the severity of the offense was sufficient to merit discharge and serve as the basis for the characterization of service. Therefore, no upgrade is warranted. (3) The applicant contends prior to the applicant’s military service and deployment to Iraq, the applicant did not suffer from any major behavioral issues. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (4) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge and separation code (SPD) should be changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s Misconduct (Serious Offense) narrative reason for separation is appropriate per AR 635-200. (5) The applicant contends meritorious service, including multiple combat tours. The Board considered this contention, including applicant’s 11 years of service and numerous awards, but determined that the applicant’s record does not outweigh the applicant’s domestic violence offenses. (6) The applicant contends being the owner of a business and attending two schools. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service accomplishments but determined that they do not outweigh the applicant’s domestic violence offense. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding it being an isolated occurrence and the applicant’s otherwise good service and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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. 11. 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 AR20200006665 1