1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 11 May 2020 b. Date Received: 2 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 or general (under honorable conditions) and a separation program designator (SPD) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to service in Iraq. The applicant’s experiences in Iraq had a profound effect on the applicant’s decision making. An upgrade would allow the applicant to be eligible to received veteran’s benefits to get help with the applicant’s PTSD condition. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 May 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant used marijuana on or about 6 December 2010 and wrong fully used spice on or about 22 May 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 June 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 July 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 46Q1P, Journalist / 2 years, 11 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 January 2010 – 4 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, Parachutist Badge g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic of DD 2624, dated 15 January 2010, reflects applicant tested positive for THC 187 during an inspection random (IR) urinalysis conducted on 6 January 2010. FG Article 15, dated 3 April 2010, reflects the applicant wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 6 December 2010 and on or about 6 January 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction private/E-2; forfeiture of $811 pay per month for one month; extra duty for 10 days; and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 7 February 2011, reflects the applicant disobeyed a lawful order on or about 6 January 2011; the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on three separate occasions; and the applicant violated a general regulation on or about 7 January 2011. The punishment is listed. FG Article 15 dated 23 June 2011 reflects the applicant wrongfully used spice on or about 22 May 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 21 September 2011; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. On 28 June 2011, the suspension of the punishment of forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months was vacated due to the applicant failing to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on or about 24 June 2011. A Confinement Order, dated 15 July 2011, reflects as a result of a Summary Court-Martial due to violations of Article 86 and Article 90 of UCMJ, the applicant was sentenced to 14 days confinement. Memorandum, subject: [Applicant], release from Civilian Confinement, dated 26 July 2011, reflects the on 15 July 2011, the applicant was tried by Summary Courts-Martial and was sentences to 14 days confinement at Lee County Confinement Facility. The applicant AMHRR is void of any other information pertaining to the court-martial. A Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE), dated 17 February 2011, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational problems. The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions for various forms of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Confinement X 12 days (15 July 2011 - 26 July 2011) / Released j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides medical evidence of PTSD diagnosis. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 149, DD Form 214, personal statement, medical documents, letters of support-4, News Articles-2, Diploma, Certificate of Recognition, Shelby County Veterans Court, program description, letter from The Office of the Presidential Correspondence, ARBA Letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is married with children, employed, and is actively involved with the church. 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 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. (6) 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. (7) 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). 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 an SPD code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests the SPD code 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 635-5, 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 contends the applicant developed PTSD due to service in Iraq. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a BHE on 17 February 2011, which reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The BHE does not indicate any mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides medical evidence of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant contends the applicant’s experiences in Iraq had a profound effect on the applicant’s decision making. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant states an upgrade would allow the applicant to be eligible to received veteran’s benefits. 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. Further, the ADRB does not upgrade a discharge to make an applicant eligible for veteran’s benefits. The applicant is married with children, employed, and is actively involved with the church. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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. Although the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, the applicant did not hold an in-service diagnosis and even while involved with VA services, was not diagnosed with a behavioral health condition or service connected for one. However, the applicant is asserting service related PTSD and provided a self-selected sheet that lists PTSD and Adult Antisocial Behavior, with no other information or context. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Per applicant assertion, PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the applicant’s misconduct appears to be a characterological issue that began prior to deployment and continues post-service, the VA did treat the applicant and did NOT diagnose PTSD or service connected applicant for any behavioral health conditions, and the self-selected sheet reflecting a PTSD diagnosis is void of the full record to include related evaluation raising validity concerns, this advisor is not recommending an upgrade at this time. (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 PTSD and Adult Antisocial Behavior outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongful use of marijuana and spice – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant developed PTSD due to service in Iraq. The applicant contends the applicant’s experiences in Iraq had a profound effect on the applicant’s decision making. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was not diagnosed or service for any mitigating behavioral health condition, to include PTSD. After applying liberal consideration, the Board found that the applicant’s assertion does not outweigh the basis for separation. 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 available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and Adult Antisocial Behavior outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongful use of marijuana and spice. The Board further considered the totality of the record and found insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious actions taken by the Command. 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 UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 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 AR20200008253 1