1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 February 2020 b. Date Received: 2 March 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant deployed to Afghanistan in 2003 and while deployed, the applicant’s spouse, at the time, disappeared and took off with the children. The applicant didn’t acknowledge suffering from PTSD and depression after returning home but knew something was wrong. The applicant looked for help but was turned down, so the applicant began to drink. The applicant’s spouse was later arrested for child abuse and the children became a ward of the State of California. After that, the applicant was punished multiple times and the PTSD and depression got worse. The applicant tried to commit suicide a few times after losing the children to the state and then was discharged from the unit due to the behavior. The applicant continues to get help from the VA but would like to be eligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 March 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for attempting to pass counterfeit money at the Honeycutt Shoppette on Fort Bragg, for making a false official statement in an attempt to impede the investigation of the counterfeit bills, for having a history of not being at the appointed place of duty, and for disobeying orders from NCO’s and being verbally disrespectful towards NCO’s. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 February 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 January 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 55B10, Ammunition Specialist / 5 years, 4 months, 18 days See Note in Summary of Facts d. Prior Service / Characterizations: DEP, 19 January 2000 – 6 November 2000 / NA RA, 7 November 2000 – 29 January 2003 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 April 2003 – 11 August 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, ACM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: One Developmental Counseling Form, for various acts of misconduct. FG Article 15, dated 19 May 2005, for failing to go at the time prescribed, his to the appointed place of duty on or about 19 April 2005, for being disrespectful in language towards Sergeant D. by saying “you can’t blame me for you not being able to contact me” or words to that effect on 19 April 2005, and for disobeying a lawful order to keep his mouth closed and stand at parade rest on 19 April 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 19 July 2005, forfeiture of $382.00, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 19 July 2005, extra duty for 14 days and restriction to the limits of the installation for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 July 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 23 January 2006, for unlawfully attempting to pass counterfeit currency at the Honeycutt Shoppette on 23 November 2005 and for making an official false statement with intent to deceive on DA Form 2823 on or about 23 November 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, however reduction in excess of E-3 was suspended, forfeiture of $593.00 pay per month for two months, suspended, both to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 26 July 2006 and extra duty for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 26 July 2006. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating Decision, dated 11 September 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated at 70 percent for PTSD (Non-Combat/Fear- Easing Standard). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision; Department of Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits; Joint Services Unofficial Transcript. 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), 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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 contends he suffered from PTSD and depression. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did, however, submit a copy of a VA Rating Decision, dated 11 September 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated at 70 percent for PTSD (Non-Combat/Fear- Easing Standard). The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 July 2005, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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. Note: The applicant’s DD 214 reflects MOS at time of discharge was 55B10, Ammunition Specialist, however, the applicant’s record shows a DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 23 August 2004, reflecting the applicant achieved course standards for the achievement of 27M10, Multiple Launch Rocket System Repairer. 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; Bipolar Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found PTSD and Bipolar DO were diagnosed during active service. The VA establishment of service connection for PTSD (70%) indicates that this condition existed during active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has two BH conditions, PTSD and Bipolar Disorder, which mitigate some of the misconduct. As there is an association between these conditions, oppositional behaviors and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between these diagnoses and the offenses of not being at assigned place of duty, disobeying an NCO’s orders and being verbally disrespectful towards NCOs. While the applicant has also been diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar Disorder, mild, these conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s remaining offenses - attempting to pass counterfeit money at Shoppette in Ft Bragg and making false official statement impeding investigation of counterfeit bills – as neither one 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? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the discharge as the unmitigated misconduct – attempting to pass counterfeit money at Shoppette in Ft Bragg and making false official statement impeding investigation of counterfeit bills – made the applicant’s service not sufficiently meritorious to be characterized as honorable. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD and depression. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the conditions did not mitigate attempting to pass counterfeit money and making a false official statement in an attempt to impede the investigation of the counterfeit bills. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues. 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 board determined the applicant did not provide substantial credible evidence the outweighed attempting to pass counterfeit money and making a false official statement in an attempt to impede the investigation of the counterfeit bills. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that 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 c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 applicant’s PTSD and Bi-polar did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of attempting to pass counterfeit money at Shoppette in Ft Bragg or making false official statement impeding investigation of counterfeit bills. With this misconduct the applicant’s overall service was not sufficiently meritorious to be characterized as Honorable. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20200008499 1