1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 February 2020 b. Date Received: 12 February 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 was discharged prior to the implementation of the 2014 Hagel Memo “Supplemental Guidance to Military BCMRs/BCNRs by Veterans Claiming PTSD.” When the applicant’s reserve unit returned from deployment to Kuwait and Iraq in 2003, there was no mental health assistance afforded to them. It was a different time in the Army. The unspoken mantra was to “suck it up and move on.” The applicant comes from a military family, the parent honorably served 18 years, this was taught in the parent’s time and in the applicant’s time. This policy and belief have since changed, as shown in the Hagel Memo. The applicant returned from deployment as a broken person. The parent had passed away suddenly six months prior to the applicant’s activation. The applicant was grieving the loss of the parent when the applicant left and returned grieving for the life the applicant had lost and the life the applicant took. The deployment changed the applicant. The applicant’s actions on deployment would cause the applicant immense grief, guilt and pain. With the lack of support available once the applicant returned, the applicant tried to suck it up and push all things related to the service away, leading to the applicant’s dereliction of duty. The applicant completely cut oneself off from the unit and those which the applicant served with. What the applicant did not understand, and would take 14 years to comprehend, is the applicant was suffering form PTSD. The applicant spent 14 years repressing anything related to the Army, essentially hiding and ignoring a substantial portion of the applicant’s life. Alcohol would be the thing the applicant turned to when repression did not work. It has only been in the last two years, the applicant would start to come to terms with their service. In 2014, the applicant started utilizing the Post 9/11 GI Bill to partially fund the applicant’s pursuit of an education. The first hurdle was to obtain an associate degree from Baltimore City College. The applicant then transferred to Towson University in 2017 to earn a bachelors degree. The applicant started using the Military and Veterans centers located on campus, where the applicant would have to face and admit the service to the applicant and others. It would be the first time in over a decade the applicant would interact with other veterans. The shame, sadness, grief and guilt the applicant had spent so long repressing started bubbling to the surface. The applicant found a group of people which had been through similar trauma and could sympathize with the applicant. The applicant has sought intense therapy with the VA Outpatient Trauma Rehabilitation Program and is seeing a psychiatrist for anti-depressants and sleep-aids. The applicant started the process of obtaining a disability rating through the VA in March 2019 and was granted 30 percent service-connected PTSD disability rating in December 2019. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 January 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 March 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 December 1999 / 8 years (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 62J10 General Construction Equipment Operator / 6 years, 3 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 November 2002 – 25 September 2003 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwaitx2 (21 November 2002 – 20 March 2003) (24 July 2003 – 19 August 2003), / Iraq / (21 March 2003 – 23 July 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, AFRM-M, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 18 December 2019, which reflects the applicant was granted 30 percent service-connection for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Orders 06-047- 00218; VA Rating Decision; Bachelor of Science Certificate; three third-party letters; Student Leadership Awards Program; Towson University Letter; Towson University article for veterans. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained an associate degree from Baltimore City Community College and has earned a bachelor’s degree from Towson University. 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 06-047-00218, dated 16 February 2006. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends when the reserve unit returned from deployment there was no mental health assistance offered. The applicant returned from deployment as a broken person. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 18 December 2019, which reflects the applicant was granted 30 percent service-connection for PTSD. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant has obtained an associate degree from Baltimore City Community College and has earned a bachelor’s degree from Towson University. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. 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. 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: PTSD (30%SC). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that VA service connection for PTSD establishes that it occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition. As there is an association between PTSD and decreased occupational functioning, there is a nexus between applicant's diagnosis of combat-related PTSD and applicant’s Unsatisfactory Performance. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the accepted basis for applicant’s separation – unsatisfactory participation – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends when the reserve unit returned from deployment there was no mental health assistance offered. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the file to support this claim. The Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with mental health concerns, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant has a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge and further upgrade is not warranted. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant has obtained an associate degree from Baltimore City Community College and has earned a bachelor’s degree from Towson University. The ADRB 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 must 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant has a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge and further upgrade is not warranted. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of unsatisfactory participation. 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 under the same pretexts, 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 AR20200007210 1