1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 August 2020 b. Date Received: 5 August 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, and a change to the separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, to have done many good things while in the service, one mistake of drinking under the influence is still affecting the applicant in civilian life. The applicant would like to place this behind to be able to move forward. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 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: 23 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 May 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, was derelict in the performance of duties by assaulting another Soldier, and broke restriction. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 17 May 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 June 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 May 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 1 month, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 11 February 2011, for at or near State Route 11, physically control a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in the applicant’s breath was, as shown by chemical analysis, equal to or exceeded 0.15 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath on or about 15 January 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction from E-4 to E-1; forfeiture of $596.00 pay per month for 2 months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. On 11 February 2011, the applicant appealed and on 22 February 2011 the appeal was denied. FG Article 15, dated 18 March 2011, for: Being derelict in the performance of duties, failed to clean the office, classroom, training room, latrines, and the grey area of G Battery on or about 18 March 2011. Assaulting another Soldier by striking the Soldier on the chest and shoulder with the applicant’s hands on or about 20 March 2011. Breaking restriction on or about 20 March 2011. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $713.00 pay per month for 2 months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. On 18 April 2011, the applicant appealed and on 27 April 2011 the appeal was denied. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE), dated 9 February 2011, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. The applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational problem, alcohol abuse and hypertension. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 21 June 2011, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 22 March 2011 and for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 10 March 2011; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 11 February 2011. FLAGS / AEA codes: AA, BA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9V i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; copies of military awards; current work license; third party letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Licensed real estate broker period 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 PTSD, 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 3-7b 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 prescribes 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-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 requests an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the SPD code and narrative reason. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s 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 misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant contends, in effect, the narrative reason for the discharge needs to 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, 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 contends, in effect, the SPD code should 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. The 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, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” The applicant contends, in effect, to have done many good things while in service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating diagnoses. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason. The Board considered this contention but determined that there were no mitigating circumstances in the evidentiary record which could outweigh the misconduct. Also, the board determined the current separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. The discharged was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, to have done many good things while in service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address additional information/evidence. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support contention(s). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board carefully considered the: applicant's request, supporting documents, evidentiary record, medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board unanimously voted (vote of 5-0) that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable based on the severity of misconduct (DUI, assault, and breaking restriction). The Board did consider the applicant’s length of service and post-service accomplishments but found that these did not outweigh the severity of misconduct. There was no other mitigation to overturn the discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts. The reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable based on the presented evidentiary record. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of Army 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 AR20200008225 1