1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2020 b. Date Received: 17 January 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a change is requested because the applicant trying to prove not being at fault, was not given a fair chance. The narrative reason discourages the employers from giving the applicant any chance for employment. The applicant was a good Soldier, who was placed in a bad position with the leadership. The first sergeant, who was solely committed to getting the applicant discharged, disregarded all the evidence of proof and the character references from the platoon sergeant and others. Although the applicant did not have the best relationship with the spouse, the applicant never placed a hand on the spouse. The applicant was arrested for being aggressive during an argument when a neighbor called the police. The applicant admits to only punching holes in the wall. The applicant had seen anger management to help find better ways to express. When the applicant was charged with aggravated assault and arrested and booked, there was no statement by the spouse, nor any marks on the body. The spouse called the squad leader when learning of the charge. The spouse also informed the judge at the hearing there was no assault, and the charge was dropped and expunged from the record. When released, the applicant was advised to record any future arguments to avoid a repeat of an arrest. Another argument ensued in August and instead of punching the walls, the applicant started recording the sound and tried to leave the apartment. The officers were called again by the neighbors. Because of the recording, the spouse was arrested for throwing things and not allowing the applicant to leave. Although the applicant informed the platoon sergeant about the spouse’s arrest and the recordings, the first sergeant blamed the applicant for the spouse’s arrest and proceeded to expedite the separation proceedings. The first sergeant was the acting command sergeant major at the time, while the actual command sergeant major was deployed. The character references from the platoon sergeant and others were never considered because they were not in the separation packet. There appeared to be numerous amounts of injustice actions against the minorities in the company. The complaints about the first sergeant were never resolved. The applicant never had a fair chance at rebutting the narrative reason for separation stating serious offense, which prohibits the applicant from doing anything in the civilian world. The Board should consider the request because the applicant did not have a fair opportunity, considering the circumstances at the time. Other than the issues with the spouse, the applicant was a good Soldier, who before the injuries was a PT stud and never received a counsel statement for anything. It is difficult trying to obtain an employment where employers must decipher what serious offense meant. It is not helping with the depression and anxiety at all and making adjusting outside of the military even harder. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 December 2022, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 July 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 February 2017, the applicant assaulted the spouse by slapping the spouse in the face and choking the spouse. On 23 May 2016, the applicant communicated a threat to the spouse via text message. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 August 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 August 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 October 2014 / 3 years, 22 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, 2 B Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 10 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms for acts of misconduct. Incident Report, dated 24 February 2017, reflects the applicant was arrested for the offense: simple assault (off-post). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 April 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. There was no diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA benefits decision letter, dated 8 March 2018, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent service connection disability for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood (claimed as acquired behavioral health issues to include adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety, sleep condition and depressed mood). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 149; self-authored statement; medical record (page 13); VA Benefits Decision letter; and DD Form 214. 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. 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends 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, 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 a narrative reason change is requested because the applicant was not given a fair chance while trying to prove not being at fault, and all the evidence of proof and the character references from the platoon sergeant and others were disregarded. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the narrative reason for discharge discourages the employers from giving the applicant any chance for employment and it is difficult trying to obtain an employment where employers must decipher the meaning of serious offense. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends despite having issues with the spouse, the applicant was a good Soldier, who before the injuries was a PT stud and never received a counsel statement for anything. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the current discharge is not helping with the depression and anxiety and making adjusting outside of the military harder. The applicant provides a VA benefits decision letter, which reflects the applicant being granted 100 percent service-connection disability for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood (claimed as acquired behavioral health issues to include adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety, sleep condition and depressed mood). The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 11 April 2017, which 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 MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. 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: 1) Chronic Adjustment Disorder (VA-100%SC); 2) Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the VA has established service connection for applicant's diagnosis of Chronic Adjustment Disorder. Record review indicates the IPV occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been 100% service connected for Chronic Adjustment DO, this condition does not mitigate assault as this condition does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. The writer appreciates that the applicant was both the alleged offender and victim of IPV. Record review indicates that the applicant’s wife engaged in non-life threatening psychological abuse towards the applicant while the applicant engaged in potentially life-threatening physical abuse towards his wife (hitting her and choking her). Given the seriousness of the applicant's offense, specifically the physical assault of his wife, it is the writer’s opinion that gravity of the applicant's misconduct far outweighs any mitigation offered under Liberal Consideration. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The SPD codes identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason 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. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable, and the SPD code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. (2) The applicant contends despite having issues with the spouse, the applicant was a good Soldier, who before the injuries was a PT stud and never received a counsel statement for anything. 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. It brought discredit to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends the current discharge is not helping with the depression and anxiety and making adjusting outside of the military harder. The Board reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records and found that the applicant was diagnosed with Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The Board determined the eligibility for Veteran's benefits for assistance with depression 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. c. The Board determined 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) did not excuse or mitigate the offense of assault. 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, as 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 AR20200006748 1