1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 31 March 2020 b. Date Received: 14 April 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the required time served should have at least resulted in a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable conditions discharge. The applicant states some people who only served two years received an honorable conditions discharge. The applicant served nearly three years and at least 99 percent of that time was served honorably. The applicant admits to making some mistakes, but it shouldn’t discolor the rest of applicant’s service. The applicant desires to attend school to get an electrical engineering degree and feels applicant earned the right to use the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill. The applicant would also like to be eligible for VA health care benefits. The applicant does not have the medical records to prove the bipolar diagnosis, but June of 2019 is when most of the behavior changed for the worst. The applicant didn’t start treatment until sometime in July and around that time, the applicants discharge recommendation changed from general (under honorable conditions) to under other than honorable conditions with him having bipolar type I. The applicant wasn’t 100 percent responsible for the behavior that led to the discharge as the condition was a contributing factor. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 April 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-4 / Under Other than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 December 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 23 May 2019, the applicant violated a lawful order given by a Superior Commissioned Officer and a Superior Officer; on or about 23 May 2019, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; for being drunk and disorderly on 8 April 2018, bringing discredit upon the armed forces; on or about 8 April 2018, for erroneously pulling a fire alarm in building 13611, being disrespectful in language to a Noncommissioned Officer and for willfully destroying, by striking an exit sign in the same building; for on or about 16 March 2018, attempting to pay someone to assault and communicating a threat to Private First Class R. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 October 2019 / The applicant declined the right to consult with legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 October 2016, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 December 2019 / Under Other Than Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2017 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the NDSM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: 11 Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Law Enforcement Report – Initial - Final, dated 5 March 2018, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of disorderly conduct on 3 February 2018. On 19 March 2018, a Military Protective Order was signed restraining the applicant from initiating any contact or communication with a Private First Class either directly or through a third party. Summarized Article 15, dated 27 July 2018, for attempting to pay someone to assault a Private First Class and for wrongfully communicating a threat to injure the Private First Class by forcing him into filling out a sworn statement on applicant’s behalf on or about 16 March 2018. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. Law Enforcement Report – Initial - Final, dated 9 April 2019, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of damage to government property and being drunk and disorderly on 9 April 2019. FG Article 15, dated 3 May 2019, for being disrespectful in language towards a Superior Noncommissioned Officer by shouting at him and saying “I’m talking to you, do you want to fight?”, or words to that effect on 8 April 2019, for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 9 April 2019, for willfully destroying, by striking, an exit sign in building 13611 on 8 April 2019, for being drunk and disorderly on 8 April 2019 and for erroneously pulling a fire alarm in building 13611 on 8 April 2019. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $840.00 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; restriction to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 19 June 2019, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty and failing to obey two lawful orders on 23 May 2019. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $420.00 pay per month for two months (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 5 January 2020; extra duty for 45 days; restriction to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 45 days. Memorandum for Staff Judge Advocate, dated 27 November 2019, reflects the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board dated 27 June 2019, however, the applicant record is void of this documentation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 April 2019, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 May 2019, reflects the applicant was hospitalized and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct; likely ADHD. Recommendations for the applicant was to ensure applicant was able to attend all follow-up appointments, restrict access to or disarm all military weapons and ammunition, encourage applicant to temporarily secure personal weapons with MP’s or other trusted source, prohibit the use of alcohol, provide a Command escort to the Post Discharge Eval/Safety Check appointment, have voice to voice contact with a mutually identified person, for support, every four hours while awake until the Safety Check appointment and an IOP was recommended because the applicant needed help learning to slow things down and think before acting to improve executive function. The applicant was placed on a temporary profile, dated 2 May 2019, and it was noted that applicant was non-deployable due to decreased mission capability from a behavioral health (BH) condition. Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 June 2019, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: bipolar disorder Report of Medical History, dated 11 September 2019, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: bipolar disorder Memorandum for Staff Judge Advocate, dated 27 November 2019, reflects the applicant had a disqualifying medical condition of Bipolar II Disorder and underwent a Medical Evaluation Board dated 27 June 2019, however, applicant record is void of this documentation. It is noted that this medical condition did not directly cause the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination. 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), 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 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (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. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 conditions or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the required time served should have at least resulted in a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable conditions because others with only two years received an honorable conditions discharge. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends applicant’s bipolar disorder was a contributing factor to the behavior that led to applicant’s discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service bipolar disorder. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) 2 May 2019, which indicates the applicant was hospitalized and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct; likely ADHD. Additionally, a Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 June 2019, indicates the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: bipolar disorder and in the Report of Medical History, dated 11 September 2019, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: bipolar disorder. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Bipolar II and I Disorder, and personality disorder traits. The applicant is currently service connected for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Bipolar II and I Disorder, and personality disorder traits. Applicant is service connected for MDD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the lack of appropriate psychological assessment before issuing a Bipolar Disorder diagnosis along with the VA service connecting for MDD rather than Bipolar Disorder, caution should be taken in blanketly accepting and applying Bipolar Disorder. However, if Bipolar Disorder is accepted at face value, the condition can be associated with substance use and, as such, is partially mitigating for alcohol related behavior; drunk and disorderly, disrespect, and hitting the exit sign. However, while the alcohol misuse is mitigated, the egregious nature of some of the actions outweighs mitigation, e.g. threatening a drive through patron and pulling a fire alarm. The additional misconduct of communicating a threat, attempting to pay someone to assault another Soldier, and leaving the installation with the intent of going AWOL including the associated FTR and disobeying an order are not mitigated as these actions required intact cognitive skills to include problem solving multiple steps over time with attempts at evasion uncharacteristic of a manic or related episode. In summary, while alcohol misuse can be a progression or sequela of Bipolar Disorder, the applicant’s misconduct is only partially mitigated with the more significant misconduct not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder or Adjustment Disorder outweighed the more egregious offenses which were a substantial part of the applicant’s pattern of misconduct separation for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the bipolar disorder was a contributing factor to the behavior that led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder or Adjustment Disorder outweighed the more egregious offenses which were a substantial part of the applicant’s pattern of misconduct separation. Therefore, no upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the required time served should have at least resulted in a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable conditions because others with only two years received an honorable conditions discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that, given the totality of applicant’s service record, the current characterization is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention, including applicant’s four years of service, but determined that a totality of the applicant’s service record did not outweigh the medically unmitigated portions of applicant’s misconduct. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow Veteran’s benefits, including educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Adjustment Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the more egregious offenses in the applicant’s pattern of misconduct. The Board also considered the applicant's contention of good service and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20200007879 1