1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, having served over four years of active duty, including a 12-month combat tour in Afghanistan and a reenlistment in Afghanistan in October 2010, the applicant made a mistake of making a PCS move to Fort Stewart, because the Army career went down the drain. The applicant had intended on going green to gold after continuing the college education at Fort Stewart. The applicant was never a drinker before deployment, but began drinking heavily in 2011, upon returning from Afghanistan. The applicant enlisted at age 20, while attending college on a basketball scholarship, to serve the country. The applicant enrolled in mental health in 2011 for PTSD treatment and did a PCS move to Fort Stewart. In March 2012, the applicant was newly married to a spouse who deployed to Afghanistan in August 2012. The end of August 2012, the applicant received the first and only DUI and an Article 15 for the DUI. Because the Army was downsizing, the applicant was inevitably kicked out of the military, after completing the AA and the Army Prime-well course. The applicant is currently staying in a VA inpatient facility getting treatment for PTSD and chronic homelessness, to obtain stable housing. The applicant has six dependent children to plan and care for their future as the applicant had lost all hope in life with suicide ideation. The applicant never had any negative behavior problems while serving. The applicant was always a high APFT test scorer, and weapons expert with multiple weapons. The applicant enlisted as a wheeled vehicle mechanic and assigned to a Calvary unit. The applicant stepped up to the challenge while deployed in combat and completed various missions going above and beyond the job description, completing foot patrols, assisting in captures of HVT instants, 50. Cal/M240B gunner, discovering several IEDs for EOD to defuse, and working outside the wire the entire deployment. The applicant has been homeless since 2013. Upon returning from deployment in 2011, the applicant mistakenly denied all the signs and symptoms the PTSD reigned in on the Army career and the Post military life. The applicant did not have the opportunity to plan and prepare for the discharge. The applicant had less than 24-hour notice to separate, without going to WTU. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder mitigating a majority of 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 is 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 December 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 November 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 31 December 2011, the applicant exceeded the speed limit by 21 miles per hour. On 3 January 2012, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. On 31 July 2012, the applicant failed to go to accountability formation and work call. On 2 August 2012, the applicant willfully disobeyed a noncommissioned officer. On 20 August 2012, the applicant willfully disobeyed a noncommissioned officer. On 31 August 2012, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. On 5 September 2012, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. On 13 September 2012, the applicant willfully disobeyed a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 November 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 December 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 October 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 4 years, 1 month, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 November 2008 - 14 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (28 March 2010 - 20 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM-2, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Nine Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Civilian Police Booking Form reflects on 31 August 2012, the applicant was apprehended for driving under the influence of alcohol and received traffic citations for driving under the influence and speeding in excess of maximum limits. CG Article 15, dated 20 September 2012, for disobeying an NCO on two separate occasions on 2 and 20 August 2012 and (continuation sheet NIF). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days and an oral reprimand. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 1 October 2012, reflects the applicant was driving while under the influence of alcohol. After being observed and stopped for operating a vehicle while intoxicated on 31 August 2012, the applicant's breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol content of .123. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Medical Records containing Progress Notes, Psychology Notes, and Homeless Program Notes: pages 1-77 of 77 pages (dated between 10 January 2014 and 29 March 2016); pages 1-65 of 65 pages (dated between 7 January 2019 and 22 October 2020); and pages 1-37 of 55 pages (dated between 16 April 2021 and 23 November 2020), reflecting behavioral health treatment for PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, chronic adjustment disorder, and homeless program. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 3 October 2012, the applicant and the examining medical physician noted: Panic Attacks. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40- 501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence (per ASAP), Adjustment Disorder (per AHTLA BH), and currently participating in ASAP. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and medical records as additional evidence. 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 Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service by never having any negative behavior problems while serving and was always a high APFT test scorer and weapons expert with multiple weapons, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends having to start drinking heavily in 2011, upon returning from Afghanistan and was enrolled in mental health in 2011 for PTSD treatment. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses of and treatment for PTSD, adjustment and anxiety disorders, and prescribed medication and receiving assistance with homelessness. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 4 October 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE reflected diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence (per ASAP), Adjustment Disorder (per AHTLA BH), and was participating in ASAP. The applicant contends having received the first and only DUI and an Article 15 for the DUI. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends not having the opportunity to plan and prepare for the discharge, because of receiving notice to separate in less than 24 hours, without going to WTU. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. Post-service, the applicant was initially service connected for Anxiety Disorder now combat related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with additional diagnoses of Unspecified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. Post- service, the VA has determined the applicant had an Anxiety Disorder in-service, not PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that based on the VA service connection for combat related PTSD and nexus between trauma and avoidance, difficulty with authority, and substance use, the basis for separation is partially mitigated; driving over the speed limit is unmitigated. (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 a majority of the applicant's offenses constituting the pattern of misconduct basis of separation are outweighed by the applicant's PTSD. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having to start drinking heavily in 2011, upon returning from Afghanistan and was enrolled in mental health in 2011 for PTSD treatment. The Board considered and found that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fully outweighs the applicant's pattern of misconduct basis for separation. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service by never having any negative behavior problems while serving and was always a high APFT test scorer and weapons expert with multiple weapons, including a combat tour. 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 fully outweighing the applicant's pattern of misconduct basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends having received the first and only DUI and an Article 15 for the DUI. 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 fully outweighing the applicant's pattern of misconduct basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends not having the opportunity to plan and prepare for the discharge, because of receiving notice to separate in less than 24 hours, without going to WTU. 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 fully outweighing the applicant's pattern of misconduct basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder mitigating a majority of 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 is 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 PTSD mitigated the applicant's pattern of 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: 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 AR20200008542 1