1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 May 2020 b. Date Received: 5 June 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on incidents pertaining to a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis. The applicant was denied placement in the Warrior Transition Unit, PTSD treatment, post- deployment leave, post clearing and ACAP procedures. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) mitigating the applicant's cocaine use and failures to report. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): Charge Sheet, dated 16 March 2010, reflects the applicant was charged with two specifications of wrongfully using cocaine between on or about 7 December 2009 and 11 December 2009 and between on or about 5 January 2010 and 8 January 2010 and seven specifications of failing to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 10 April 2010 / The applicant submitted a statement on his behalf acknowledging the ramifications of requesting the Chapter 10 discharge. (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 April 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 November 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y20, Unit Supply Specialist / 9 years, 3 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 January 2001 - 2 November 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 April 2003 - 8 April 2004), Iraq (5 December 2005 - 28 November 2006), Iraq (11 June 2008 - 15 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-CS-4, ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, CAB g. Performance Ratings: June 2004 - February 2005 / Among The Best March - 2005 - February 2006 / Among The Best 1 March 2006 - 28 February 2007 / Among The Best 28 February 2007 - 27 February 2008 / Among The Best 28 February 2008 - 27 February 2009 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 13 March 2007, reflects the applicant wrongfully used cocaine on or between 29 January 2007 and 1 February 2007. The punishment consisted of reduction to sergeant/E-5; forfeiture of $1,161 pay per month for 1 month and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant was counseled on more than one occasion for various acts of misconduct. Military Police Report dated 20 March 2009, which indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to obey a General Order, Article 92, UCMJ. Bar to Reenlistment Certificate dated 6 August 2009, which was initiated by the applicant unit commander that indicates the applicant in a Summary Court-Martial was charged with violation of a Lawful General Order dated 9 June 2008, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages and dereliction of duty. The applicant was found guilty and sentence to reduction in rank and 20 days restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Rating decision, dated 18 April 2018, which reflects the applicant has an evaluation of PTSD, which was 100-percent disabling. (2) AMHRR Listed: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) dated, 9 November 2009, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent moderate; PTSD; and alcohol dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, VA Rating Decision, DA Forms 1059, NCOERs 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) 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. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II). (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 the discharge was inequitable because it was based on incidents pertaining to a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; PTSD; and alcohol dependence. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 9 November 2009, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the administrative proceedings. The MSE/BHE was considered by the separation authority The applicant contends the applicant was denied placement in the Warrior Transition Unit, PTSD treatment, post-deployment leave, post clearing and ACAP procedures. 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: PTSD; MDD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that MDD was diagnosed by Army BH provider; VA service connection for PTSD establishes 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 two mitigating BH conditions, PTSD and MDD. As there is an association between PTSD/MDD and use of alcohol and illicit drugs to self-medicate painful emotional symptoms, there is a nexus between the diagnoses and the applicant's wrongful use of cocaine, wrongful consuming of alcohol while deployed and dereliction of duty. Medical record review indicates that the applicant suffers from extremely severe PTSD which has both caused substance abuse and alcohol dependence and rendered multiple treatment modalities of said substance and alcohol dependence ineffective. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with 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 MDD and PTSD outweighed the misconduct for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on incidents pertaining to a PTSD diagnosis. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD and MDD mitigating the applicant's misconduct. (2) The applicant was denied placement in the Warrior Transition Unit, PTSD treatment, post-deployment leave, post clearing and ACAP procedures. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD/MDD outweighing the applicant's misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and MDD mitigating the applicant's cocaine use and failures to report. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD and MDD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of cocaine use and dereliction of duty. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the mitigating condition is service-limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20200008150 1