1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 May 2020 b. Date Received: 12 May 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions and a last name change for military records. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, this request has been thought about for years. The applicant did enough to deserve education benefits. The applicant answered the call after 9/11 and would’ve continued to do so until the time in service ended. The applicant ended up going to Iraq again and began suffering from PTSD when the unit chose to kick the applicant out of Iraq and the Army. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 July 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For failing to be at the appointed place of duty numerous times, disobeying noncommissioned officers of different ranks numerous times, communicating a threat to a Staff Sergeant, being found sleeping on guard duty, conspiring with a Specialist, to commit larceny and for committing larceny. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 July 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 July 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 January 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 4 years, 7 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (6 January 2004 – 17 January 2005), Iraq (11 October 2006 – 6 August 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: GCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: 19 Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. FG Article 15, dated 23 March 2006, for conspiring with a Specialist to commit an offense under UCMJ, to wit: larceny of privately owned property, of a value of some amount, the property of another person, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the applicant and the Specialist S. did go to the parking lot on 62nd Street and Support Avenue and look for cars to break into and steal property on 18 November 2005 and for attempting to commit larceny of privately owned property, of a value of some amount, the property of another person on 18 November 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $846 pay per month for two months (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 9 October 2006; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction to the limits of the Brigade area, place of duty, dining and medical facilities, and place of worship for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 14 June 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 1500 hours at the theater for a briefing by Command Sergeant Major C.M., for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0530 hours at the motor pool to prepare the vehicles for Quick Reaction Force on 1 May 2007, for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 8 June 2007, for willfully disobeying a lawful order on or about 31 May 2007, for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 29 April 2007 twice, for being found asleep when being posted at Outpost seven. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $426.00 pay and extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 7 July 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0630 hours at the motor pool to prepare for a mission, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0730 hours at the motor pool to prepare for a mission and 1400 hours at the Battery Operations Center for extra duty on 26 June 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0745 hours at the motor pool to prepare for a mission on 27 June 2007, for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 27 June and for wrongfully communicating with a noncommissioned officer a threat on 25 June 2007. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $700 pay per month for two months: extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): NIF (1) Applicant provided: A screenshot of rated disabilities reflecting the applicant was rated at 60 percent for hearing loss, right shoulder pain, PTSD, tinnitus, left should pain and unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, unspecified depressive disorder (claimed as PTSD). (2) AMHRR Listed: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; screenshot of rated disabilities; 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD while serving. The Veteran’s Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The available medical evidence in the AMHRR is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant did submit evidence, to support the contention. Note: The applicants name while serving in the Army was P. E. Tobe and it is requesting that the name be changed to P. E. Carter on all military records. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnosis: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts PTSD existed in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the basis for separation is only partially mitigated. Given the nexus between trauma and avoidance/difficulty with authority, FTRs and disobeying orders is mitigated. However, communicating a threat, conspiring to commit larceny, and committing larceny are not a progression or sequela of PTSD. (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 PTSD outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of communicating a threat, conspiring to commit larceny, and committing larceny. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD while serving. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder does mitigate some of applicant’s misconduct. The applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of communicating a threat, conspiring to commit larceny, and committing larceny. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (3) The applicant requests to have a name change on applicant’s military records. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 to all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of communicating a threat, conspiring to commit larceny, and committing larceny. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant's record and determined that it 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. 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 AR20200007062 1