1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant further requests rank be restored to sergeant/E-5. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was not given sufficient legal representation throughout the summary court-martial proceedings. Democrats, including former presidents, secretly conspired to destroy the applicant's military career and they continue humiliate, instigate, and spy on the applicant. The applicant was harassed, falsely accused, and provoked to anger by CSM R and continued to be harassed by a female commander as reprisal. The female commander made false accusations against the applicant. The applicant had honorable service, including two combat tours. The combat tours took a toll on the applicant overall health, well-being, mind, memory, and military career. The applicant is still haunted by the death of fellow Soldiers. The applicant has a 100-pcercent service-connected disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (The applicant's complete statement is available for the board's review) b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighing the applicant's misconduct. 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. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 April 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / 2 years college / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 9 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 May 2002 - 31 May 2005 / HD RA, 9 February 2006 - 1 April 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (21 January 2009 - 9 December 2009), Iraq (26 June 2006 -1 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-CS-3, JSAM-2, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, ASR, OSR-4, OSB-6, NATO MDL, Driver and Mechanic Badge-Mechanic, COA-5, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge-Rifle Bar g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2007 - 13 March 2008 / Fully Capable 1 April 2008 - 31 October 2008 / Fully Capable 1 November 2008 - 6 July 2009 / Fully Capable 7 July 2009 - 5 December 2009 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 2 August 2011, reflects the applicant wrongfully misused a government travel card to pay for costs not related to official government travel on divers' occasions between on or about 2 June 2011 and on or about 5 June 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $1,162 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 October 2011; and extra duty for 30 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL X 18 days (25 August 2011 - 10 September 2011) / Returned j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 24 October 2018, Health Records which reflects an in-service PTSD diagnosis (2) AMHRR provided: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, personal statement, VA Rating Decision, Health Records. 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 14-12c, 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. 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 further requests rank be restored to sergeant/E-5. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service AMHRR is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, was not given sufficient legal representation throughout the summary court-martial proceedings. The applicant contends, in effect, democrats, including former presidents, secretly conspired to destroy the applicant's military career and they continue humiliate, instigate, and spy on the applicant. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was harassed, falsely accused, and provoked to anger by CSM R and continued to be harassed by a female commander as reprisal. The female commander made false accusations against the applicant. The applicant's contentions (1 thru 3) were noted; however, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be the applicant's responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. The applicant contends, in effect, there was honorable service, including two combat tours. The combat tours took a toll on the applicant overall health, well-being, mind, memory, and military career. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant is still haunted by the death of fellow Soldiers. The applicant has a 100-pcercent service-connected disability rating from VA for PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR is void of mental/behavioral status evaluation or a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 31 October 2018, which reflects an evaluation of PTSD with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate, which was 70-percent disabling, was increased to 100-percent effective 22 September 2018. The applicant also provides Health Records which reflect an in-service diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant requests rank be restored to sergeant/E-5. The applicant's request does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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; GAD, MST. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found PTSD, MDD, GAD were all diagnosed while applicant was in the service; applicant's MST occurred during service. VA service connection for PTSD (100%) establishes it occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has several BH conditions, PTSD, MDD, Generalized Anxiety DO (aka Anxiety DO NOS) and MST which mitigate some of the misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD (under which Nightmare DO is subsumed), MDD, GAD, MST and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between these conditions and the period of AWOL. These conditions do not, however, mitigate the offense of wrongfully using a government credit card as none of these conditions affects one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated AWOL offense. The Board further determined that the applicant's medically unmitigated wrongful use of a government travel card did not rise to a level to negate meritorious service required for an honorable characterization of service. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant is still haunted by the death of fellow Soldiers. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighed the applicant's misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was not given sufficient legal representation throughout the summary court-martial proceedings. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant's AMHRR or applicant provided evidence to show that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated AWOL offense. The Board further determined that the applicant's medically unmitigated wrongful use of a government travel card did not rise to a level to negate meritorious service required for an honorable characterization of service. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (3) The applicant contends democrats, including former presidents, secretly conspired to destroy the applicant's military career and they continue humiliate, instigate, and spy on the applicant. 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 behavioral health conditions providing medical mitigation of the applicant's misconduct. (4) The applicant contends the applicant was harassed, falsely accused, and provoked to anger by CSM R and continued to be harassed by a female commander as reprisal. 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 behavioral health conditions providing medical mitigation of the applicant's misconduct. (5) The applicant contends there was honorable service, including two combat tours. The Board this contention and recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's behavioral health conditions providing medical mitigation of the applicant's misconduct. c. The Board determined the characterization is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighed the applicant's misconduct. 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. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Military Sexual Trauma outweighed the applicant's misconduct. 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 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: 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 AR20200008305 1