1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 February 2020 b. Date Received: 14 February 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: 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, he was a good soldier who made a big mistake during his service. In a records review conducted on 19 July 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, PTSD diagnoses). 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, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 7 August 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used methylenedioxymethamphetamine on 3 December 2017; failed to obey Army in Europe Regulation 190-1 on 14 14 April 2018 and 23 April 2018; failed to report to his appointed place of duty on 25 April 2018; and failed to obey a lawful order on 25 April 2018. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, under honorable conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 29 June 2018, the applicant waived the right to consult with legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 July 2018 / General, under honorable conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 January 2016 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 15R, AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer / 2 years, 6 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: Basic Aviation Badge, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: On 8 January 2018, the applicant's commander was informed of the applicant's confirmed urinalysis result for MDMA and that the applicant was listed as a subject of a criminal investigation being conducted by CID. On 17 January 2018, the applicant received counseling for testing positive substance abuse. FG Article 15, dated 26 February 2018, reflects the applicant wrongfully used methylenedioxymethamphetamine on 3 December 2017. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $819.00mper month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 28 August 2018; and extra duty for 45 days. Page 1 of an undated Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form reflects the applicant was referred to the ASAP for a comprehensive assessment to determine whether or not the applicant met the criteria for enrollment. On 24 April 2018, the applicant received counseling for failing to wear proper PPE while riding a motorcycle and for failure to follow instructions. On 25 April 2018, the applicant received counseling for failing to follow a Noncommissioned Officer's order. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 March 2018, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, NOS. The applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, 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), 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 14-12b, 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant contends he was a good soldier who made a big mistake during his service. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 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) While on active duty, the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder and post-service he was service-connected by the VA for the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The VA has also diagnosed him with PTSD secondary to military trauma. All of these diagnoses may potentially be mitigating. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (YES) While on active duty, the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder and post service he was service connected by the VA for the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The VA has also diagnosed him with PTSD secondary to military trauma. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (PARTIALLY) Applicant's diagnoses of MDD and PTSD mitigate almost all of his misconduct. As both conditions are associated with the use of illicit substances and alcohol to self-medicate, there is a nexus between these two conditions and the applicant's wrongful use of MDMA. As PTSD is associated with difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between his PTSD and his failure to obey a lawful order. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidance behavior there is a nexus between his PTSD and his failure to report. Neither PTSD nor MDD mitigate the applicant's failure to obey Army in Europe Regulation 190-1 as this is a general regulation regarding the operation of a motor vehicle in Europe as per the Status of Forces agreement and applies to all soldiers stationed in Europe. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (YES) Applicant's diagnoses of MDD and PTSD and the impact these conditions had on his behavior and conduct outweighs his discharge and in accordance with Liberal Consideration, a discharge upgrade is warranted. The remaining driving violation is minor. b. The applicant contends he was a good soldier who made a big mistake during his service. The Board concurred with the findings of the Agency BH doctor, a voting member, and granted an upgrade to the discharge based on mitigating BH conditions. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI, PTSD diagnoses). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because the confirmed PTSD and MDD mitigated most of the basis for separation. (2) The board voted to change the reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), because the remaining non-mitigated misconduct, USAEUR driving violation, was minor. (3) The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN, with an associated re-code of 3, so the RE-code remains unchanged 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry 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 AR20200007662 1