1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 May 2020 b. Date Received: 19 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of service during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The applicant's mental health was affected and the actions that led to the applicant's misconduct was due to PSTD. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 June 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and Nightmare Disorder outweighing the basis for applicant's separation - DUIs, speeding, and driving while license revoked. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 5 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 December 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was pulled over while the applicant's driving privileges were revoked on 31 October 2008. The applicant was ticketed for driving 21 to 25 miles per hour over the speed limit on 10 June 2009. The applicant was convicted of two driving under the influence on 19 September 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 5 January 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 March 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 December 2012 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / High School Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D20, Calvary Scout / 9 years, 2 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 9 August 2002 - 16 September 2002 / NA RA, 17 September 2002 - 16 September 2005 / HD ARNG, 17 September 2005 - 8 February 2003 / HD RA, 10 September 2007 - 5 April 2012 / GD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (29 October 2007 - 3 June 2008; 11 September 2009 - 28 August 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2010 - 30 June 2011 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 6 September 2011, reflects on or about 30 June 2011, the applicant was apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Tacoma, Washington, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the applicant's apprehension, Officer D. of the Tacoma Police Department responded to the scene of an accident. Investigation revealed that the applicant's vehicle rolled backwards on a hill and struck another vehicle. Upon contact by Officer D., an odor of alcohol was detected on the applicant's breath. The applicant became uncooperative and was then arrested and transported to the Tacoma Police Department where an evidentiary breath test was administered and resulted in a finding of .176 grams of alcohol. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA)," "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 30 June 2011; From "PDY" to "CCA," effective 18 November 2011. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 November 2011, 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 had been screened for PTSD and mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) with negative results. The command was recommended to refer the applicant to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). ASAP Enrollment form, dated 28 November 2011, reflects the applicant was referred in the ASAP through an investigation/apprehension. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 1 December 2011, reflects the applicant was counseled for driving while intoxicated and a hit and run on 30 June 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: CCA, 30 June 2011 - 17 November 2011 / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs disability rating decision, dated 13 August 2012, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD effective 6 April 2012. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE/BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits; Rated Disabilities; Veterans Affairs disability rating decision. 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 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, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD as a direct result of service during OIF which led to the misconduct. The record confirms 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 on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. Additionally, the applicant provided a copy of the Veterans Affairs disability rating decision, dated 13 August 2012, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD effective 6 April 2012. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 21 November 2011, which indicates the applicant was screened for PTSD with negative results. 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: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS and Nightmare Disorder related to deployment. The applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. PTSD, and the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS and Nightmare Disorder related to deployment. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD trauma and substance use, the DUIs are mitigated. However, driving while privileges revoked and speeding are not a progression or sequela of trauma. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and Nightmare Disorder outweighed the basis for separation - DUIs, speeding, and driving while license revoked - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD as a direct result of service during OIF which led to the misconduct. The Board considered this contention and determined that an upgrade of the current discharge is warranted based on the applicant's PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and Nightmare Disorder outweighing the basis for applicant's separation - DUIs, speeding, and driving while license revoked. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and Nightmare Disorder outweighing the basis for applicant's separation - DUIs, speeding, and driving while license revoked. Thus, relief is warranted. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and Nightmare Disorder outweighed the basis for separation - DUIs, speeding, and driving while license revoked. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20200007176 1