1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 July 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 narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was 24 years old at the time of the discharge from the military service and the decisions the applicant made, and the applicant's behavior were not indicative of the person the applicant has become. The applicant was unaware of the ramifications the actions would have on the applicant's life today. The applicant completed bachelor's degrees in Criminal Justice and Psychology because of hard work and the support of family. While the applicant's spouse was stationed in Korea, the applicant was a paraprofessional educator. During the applicant's spare time, the applicant taught English as a second language to local Korean children and adults. The applicant also coached youth basketball with the Child and Youth Services as well as the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC) and Korean Augmentation to the U. S. Army (KATUSA) co-ed basketball teams. While stationed at Joint Base San Antonio, the applicant served as an education counselor for the post-education center. Recently, the applicant was accepted into a master's program at Fort Valley State University majoring in Rehabilitative Counseling. The discharge limited the applicant's career advancement and other opportunities. The applicant requests medical retirement because of a PTSD diagnosis. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 09 August 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length, quality, combat, post service accomplishments. The applicant's service connected PTSD mitigated the applicant's positive urinalysis for THC and FTRs, but did not mitigate accessing sexually explicit web sites and pornographic images on a govt computer. The Board voted, IAW the medical provider's recommendation, 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 RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. Ultimately, the board voted that the applicant's length, quality, and combat outweighed the unmitigated misconduct of accessing pornography on a govt computer. 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 December 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 November 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a positive urinalysis for THC on 27 June 2006, multiple FTRs, and for accessing sexually explicit web sites/pornographic images on a govt computer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 November 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 February 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / GED / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 68J20, Medical Logistics Specialist / 5 years, 2 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 July 2001 - 26 February 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (1 January 2003 - 1 July 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Field Grade Article 15, dated 11 April 2005, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully accessing sexually explicit web sites and computer-generated pornographic images (between 7 and 9 March 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $893 pay (suspended); and extra duty for 30 days. Bar to Reenlistment Certificate, dated 6 June 2006, reflects the applicant was barred to reenlistment on 26 June 2006 for patterns of misconduct related to multiple DA Forms 4856 for failure to repair and unsuccessful corrective training attempts. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 6 July 2006, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC > LOL (marijuana), during an Inspection random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 27 June 2006. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 10 July 2006, reflects the applicant command-referred in the ASAP for positive THC urinalysis result. Company Grade Article 15 dated 15 July 2006, for, on two occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (24 May and 20 June 2006). The punishment was not annotated on the DA Form 2627. In accordance with the Article 15 Punishment Worksheet, the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $451 pay (suspended); extra duty for 14 days; and restriction for 14 days (suspended). Military Police Report (Blotter), dated 17 July 2006, reflects the applicant was cited for wrongful use of marijuana, determined by a urinalysis test, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Field Grade Article 15 dated 11 September 2006, for wrongfully using marijuana (27 June 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 October 2006, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct: Initiation of Bar to Reenlistment, failure to report to corrective training, Failure to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on numerous occasions and testing positive for THC. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; two DD Forms 214, Member copies 1 and 4; DD Form 293; college transcripts; Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice and Psychology; Associate of Arts in Liberal Arts; Saint Leo University Registrar letter, Deans List; and four photographs. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant attained a bachelor's degree, with a double major, and an associate degree; earned placement on the Dean's List; and was accepted into a master's program, majoring in Rehabilitative Counseling. The applicant taught English as a second language to Korean children and adults; served as a basketball coach for Child and Youth services and the MEDDAC and KATUSA co-ed basketball teams; and served as an education counselor. 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 3-7b 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 narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the separation packet included an Article 15 from the previous enlistment or period of service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7 (previously 3-8), provides characterization will be determined solely by the soldier's military record which includes the soldier's behavior and performance of duty during the current enlistment or period of service to which the separation pertains, plus any extensions prescribed by law or regulation or effected with the consent of the Soldier. To the extent that such matters are considered on the issue of retention or separation, the record of proceedings will reflect express direction that such information will not be considered on the issue of characterization. As an exception non- judicial punishment for which punishment had not been imposed may be used in determining characterization. In the applicant's case punishment was imposed prior to the immediate enlistment and the offense in which the Article 15 was imposed was included in the notification procedure. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs 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, Separation Program Designator (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 youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 11 October 2006, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the applicant should receive medical retirement. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends attaining a bachelor's degree, with a double major, and an associate degree; earning placement on the Dean's List; and being accepted into a master's program, majoring in Rehabilitative Counseling. The applicant taught English as a second language to Korean children and adults; served as a basketball coach for Child and Youth services and the MEDDAC and KATUSA co-ed basketball teams; and served as an education counselor. 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. 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 (50%SC). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found VA service connection establishes PTSD existed or 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 a BH condition, PTSD, which mitigates some of his misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD and use of illicit drugs to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his wrongful use of THC as indicated by a positive urinalysis on 27 June 2006. The applicant's offense of viewing pornographic images on a government computer is not mitigated by PTSD as this condition does not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Additionally, viewing pornography is not part of the natural history of PTSD. As for the applicant's request for medical retirement, it is recommended he apply to the ABCMR for consideration. (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 in service connected PTSD outweighed the applicant's failures to report and positive urinalysis for THC for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and voted to grant an upgrade based on the applicant's length, quality, combat, post service and service connected PTSD mitigating the applicant's positive urinalysis for THC and multiple FTRs basis for separation. Thus, and upgrade of the characterization of service and narrative reason for separation is warranted. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. 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 mitigated the applicant's positive urinalysis for THC and multiple FTRs. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information in outline above in paragraph 9a (3) and 9b (1) of this document. (4) The applicant contends the applicant should receive medical retirement. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determine 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. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends attaining a bachelor's degree, with a double major, and an associate degree; earning placement on the Dean's List; and being accepted into a master's program, majoring in Rehabilitative Counseling. The applicant taught English as a second language to Korean children and adults; served as a basketball coach for Child and Youth services and the MEDDAC and KATUSA co-ed basketball teams; and served as an education counselor. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as outlined above in paragraph 4h of this document. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD, length, quality, and combat. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - positive urinalysis for THC and multiple FTRs. The Board determined (vote of 3-2) that the unmitigated misconduct of viewing pornography on a government computer did not outweigh the totality of the file (length, quality, combat). Therefore, 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 AR20200008376 1