1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 January 2020 b. Date Received: 24 July 2020 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable along with a reentry (RE) code, separation program designator (SPD) code and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant’s struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse because of the applicant’s military service. The applicant exceptional quality of service, length of service, and overall contributions to the Army warrants an honorable discharge. The applicant had honorable service, including two deployments. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 August 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 February 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 November 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant assaulted Ms. S by punching the individual in the face with a closed fist on 12 March 2017 and on 10 March 2015, the applicant was outside of the installation during curfew hours. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 January 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable then a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 January 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 July 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25L34, Cable System Installer/Maintainer / 13 years, 5 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: 31 August 2004 – 1 July 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, Germany, SWA / Romania (1 July 2005 – 15 August 2005), Iraq (5 December 2005 – 20 November 2006), Bulgaria (5 July 2008 – 7 November 2008), Iraq (16 July 2009 – 16 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, KDSM, ICM-CS-3, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 3 April 2015 – 1 April 2016 / Highly Qualified 2 April 2016 – 3 April 2017 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 10 March 2015, reflects the applicant violated a general order on or about 7 February 2015. The punishment consisted of reduction to sergeant/E-5, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 9 April 2015; forfeiture of $1,553 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 9 April 2017; and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) dated 27 January 2017, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational problems. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant’s counsel provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 28 November 2018, which reflects, in part, the applicant was granted service connection for PTSD with alcohol disorder with an evaluation of 70 percent, effective 23 February 2018. The applicant’s counsel also provides medical records reflecting an in-service positive screen for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Legal Brief with 18 exhibits (76 total pages), Medical Record (777 pages) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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, states 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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 through counsel requests, an upgrade to honorable along with a RE code, SPD code and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant through counsel requests the narrative reason for the discharge 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 listed in tables 2-2 or 2-2 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 through council requests the SPD be changed. Separation codes are three- character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons 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. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14-12c, is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the 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 SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant through counsel request that the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. The applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant’s struggle with PTSD and alcohol abuse because of the applicant’s military service. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD. The AMHRR contains evidence showing the applicant underwent a MSE on 27 January 2017, which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational problems. The applicant’s counsel provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 28 November 2018, which reflects, in part, the applicant was granted service connection for PTSD with alcohol disorder with an evaluation of 70 percent, effective 23 February 2018. The applicant’s counsel also provides medical records reflecting an in-service positive screen for PTSD. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the applicant exceptional quality of service, length of service, and overall contributions to the Army warrants an honorable discharge. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant 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: the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, and Antisocial Personality Disorder traits. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD. The applicant was the offender of Intimate Partner Violence. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, and Antisocial Personality Disorder traits. The applicant was the offender of IPV. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that being outside the installation could be associated with trauma given the nexus between trauma and avoidance. However, assault is not a progression or sequela of trauma. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant’s counsel contends the applicant’s command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant’s struggle with PTSD and alcohol abuse because of the applicant’s military service. The Board considered this contention but determined that there is no nexus between the in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, and Antisocial Personality Disorder traits or post service, service connected combat related PTSD and the perpetration of assault. (2) The applicant’s counsel contends the applicant’s exceptional quality of service, length of service, and overall contributions to the Army warrants an honorable discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s 13 years of service, including two combat tours in Iraq and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s assault misconduct. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, and Antisocial Personality Disorder traits did not excuse or mitigate the offenses 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 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 Lea 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 AR20200007250 1