1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 May 2020 b. Date Received: 26 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 applicant would like to enjoy full benefits as a combat veteran. The applicant contends that the applicant would have been able to honorably complete a tour of duty if the applicant had not been the victim of sexual assault (see self- authored letter), an act of the most heinous in nature upon arriving to Fort Campbell, KY. The applicant acknowledges that the applicant should not have been drinking under-age but wanted to make friends at the new duty station. The applicant did not report the assault until 2014 when being referred to the VA's Substance Use Disorder Service, the applicant reported it to a VA Social Worker. The applicant was placed in the VA's locked ward for a week. The applicant experienced a heavy sense of depression after the rape at Fort Campbell and was hospitalized in FHC Cumberland Hall in Hopkinsville, KY for a week. The applicant's work performance in the Army began to suffer. This led to the applicant losing confidence in the chain of command because the applicant was unable to report the rape for fear of being ostracized or being accused of being homosexual and being chaptered under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 15. To this day, the applicant continues to be treated by the VA for military sexual trauma (MST) and routinely continue to be tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It is the applicant's contention that had there not existed a stigma against male Soldiers being victims of MST back then and the chain of command being made aware of the applicant's assault the applicant would have been transferred to another unit, provided with treatment for trauma in service and supported by the chain of command to be a good Soldier. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 05 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (Adjustment Disorder, MST, PTSD) outweighing the applicant's basis of separation - disobeying a superior commissioned officer x2, FTR. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and maintain the reentry code RE-3. 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: 1 March 2007 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided documents which are described below in 3c (1) through (6). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 February 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 on 9 January 2006 (should be 29 December 2006) for disobeying a superior commissioned officer, by failing to report to the Brigade Chaplain as told by a captain; the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 on 2 February 2006 for disobeying a superior commissioned officer, by refusing to turn off the television, when told to do so by a captain; the applicant received a counseling statement on 28 December 2006 for failing to report; and the applicant also received numerous counseling statements for disobeying a lawful order. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 15 February 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 February 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 September 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 56M10, Chaplain Assistant / 2 years, 5 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (28 September 2005 - 22 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICMDL, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 2 February 2006, for disobeying a lawful command from a captain, the applicant's superior commissioned officer on or about 20 January 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $333.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15 dated 29 December 2006, for disobeying a lawful command from a captain, the applicant's superior commissioned officer on or about 5 December 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for 2 months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 11 January 2007, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 11 January 2007. Five Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 17 January 2007, reflects the applicant was counseled for the intent to separate under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct. This counseling included a chronological list of 22 different incidents to support the chapter. Report of Medical History dated 23 January 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Applicant seen by behavioral health for depression and anxiety. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 25 January 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions by the chain of command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant did not demonstrate signs or symptoms of a mental illness and had no diagnosis that precluded administrative action by the chain command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A Veterans Affairs (VA) table of rated disabilities that reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD; mood disorder (also claimed as alcohol abuse). (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; VA table of rated disabilities; DA Form 638; certificate of ordination; resume; background check; Louisiana Secretary of State official results; Notary Public certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is a Notary Public in Louisiana, an ordained Baptist minister, obtained a Real Estate license, operated multiple businesses within the state of Louisiana and sought public office. 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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, in effect, the applicant would have been able to honorably complete a tour of duty if the applicant had not been the victim of sexual assault (see self-authored letter), at Fort Campbell, KY. The applicant submitted statement, to support the contention of a sexual assault while in the military. However, a Criminal Investigation Division memorandum dated 17 April 2023 states there are no records pertaining to the applicant in the Army criminal file indexes. Further, the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of the applicant service will be considered by the board according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, that had there not existed a stigma against male Soldiers being victims of MST and the chain of command being made aware of the applicant's assault the applicant would have been transferred to another unit, provided with treatment for trauma in service and supported by the chain of command to be a good Soldier. The applicant admits to not reporting the assault until 2014 which was after the applicant's discharge from the Army. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of two non-judicial punishment due to misconduct. Additionally, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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: the applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, the applicant is service connected initially for combat related PTSD, MST added later. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with MST. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma, avoidance, and difficulty with authority the basis for separation is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with MST outweighed the applicant's misconduct - disobeying a superior commissioned officer and FTR - basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board found this contention valid and voted to upgrade the discharge based on applicant's Adjustment Disorder with MST outweighing the applicant's misconduct - disobeying a superior commissioned officer and FTR - basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant would have been able to honorably complete a tour of duty if the applicant had not been the victim of sexual assault (see self- authored letter), at Fort Campbell, KY. The Board found validity in this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1) of this document. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, that had there not existed a stigma against male Soldiers being victims of MST and the chain of command being made aware of the applicant's assault the applicant would have been transferred to another unit, provided with treatment for trauma in service and supported by the chain of command to be a good Soldier. The Board considered this contention, and ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the information outlined in paragraph 9a (1) (4) and 9b (1) of this document. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder with MST outweighing the basis for separation - disobeying a superior commissioned officer and FTR - basis for separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The applicant has exhausted the applicant's 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Adjustment Disorder with MST outweighed the basis for separation - disobeying a superior commissioned officer and FTR - basis for separation. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20200007185 1