1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 July 2020 b. Date Received: 7 July 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, on 5 November 2009 there was a mass shooting by the hands of a Soldier in the rank of major at Fort Hood, TX. Records shows the applicant needed help from a psychiatrist and none was given. The applicant has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 June 2023, and by a 5- 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for four specifications of absent without leave (AWOL) all of which are violations of Article 86, uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, a controlled substance, a violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 March 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 14 December 2009, the applicant voluntarily and unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 May 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 August 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / 11th Grade / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 25L10, Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer / 1 year, 7 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 May 2009, for failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 2 March 2009, 3 March 2009, 31 March 2009, 1 April 2009, 8 April 2009, and 6 May 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 26 August 2009, for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about 29 May and 29 June 2009. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $699.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. The suspension was vacated on 10 September 2009, due to the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 31 August 2009. Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “AWOL,” effective 23 November 2009; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 30 November 2009. From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 2 December 2009. From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 9 December 2009. From “PDY,” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective 13 January 2010; and From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 5 February 2010. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a summary court-martial on 13 January 2010. The applicant was charged with six specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, AWOL: On or about 18 September 2009 to 25 September 2009; guilty consistent with the plea; On or about 1 October 2009 to 13 October 2009; guilty consistent with the plea; On or about 23 November 2009 to 30 November 2009; guilty consistent with the plea; and, On or about 2 December 2009 to 9 December 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea; Violation of Article 112a, wrongfully use marijuana between on or about 13 September 2009 and on or about 13 October 2009, and between on or about 3 October 2009 and on or about 3 November 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Confinement for 30 days and forfeiture $964.00 pay. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 23 March 2010, 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 traumatic brain injury (TBI) with negative results. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 24 March 2010, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 22 April 2009. The Assignment Eligibility Availability code reflects the applicant was temporarily ineligible for reassignments due to medical, convalescence, confinement due to trial by court martial, enrollment in Track III Alcohol Substance Abuse Program, or local bar to reenlistment. The applicant was reduced from E-2 to E-1 effective 21 May 2009. FLAG / AEA codes: BA / C i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 months, 11 days: AWOL, 23 November 2009 - 29 November 2009 / Applicant reported for duty AWOL, 2 December 2009 - 8 December 2009 / Applicant reported for duty CCA, 13 January 2010 - 4 February 2010 / Returned to Military Control j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; partial case separation packet; United States Postal Services documents; PTSD article. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 “JKK” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, on 5 November 2009 there was a mass shooting by the hands of a Soldier in the rank of major at Fort Hood, TX and that records shows the applicant needed help from a psychiatrist and none was given. The applicant further contends to have since been diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant provided documents from the United States Postal Services stating the applicant entered into their employee assistance program in May 2017; however, there is no mention of being diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support a diagnosis of PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 23 March 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. Analyst notes Military Review Boards emailed and attempted to call (phone number out of order) the applicant at the email and phone number in the application between 10 and 16 May 2023 requesting medical documentation to support a behavioral health condition due to the applicant stated on the application to have been diagnosed with PTSD but received no response from the applicant. 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 Depression and Adjustment Disorder secondary to stressors. The applicant asserts PTSD but did not supply records and documentation is void of the diagnosis and supports the applicant did not have PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Depression and Adjustment Disorder secondary to stressors. The applicant asserts PTSD but did not supply records and documentation is void of the diagnosis and supports the applicant did not have PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s known diagnoses are not mitigating as the basis for separation is not a known progression or sequela of the diagnoses. Moreover, while the applicant asserted PTSD which could partially mitigate, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s PTSD mitigates misconduct as the applicant did not provide medical documents supporting the diagnosis in- or post-service. Additionally, the available medical documentation contradicts the applicant’s self-asserted PTSD diagnosis. Specifically, the applicant consistently linked symptoms to marital and occupation stressors and consistently denied trauma symptoms. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, on 5 November 2009 there was a mass shooting by the hands of a Soldier in the rank of major at Fort Hood, TX and that records shows the applicant needed help from a psychiatrist and none was given. The Board considered this contention and determined the majority of the applicant’s FTRs, AWOL and drug abuse were prior to this event and the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements and that the applicant had been screened for PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI) with negative results. Therefore, no change is warranted. (2) The applicant further contends to have since been diagnosed with PTSD. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of PTSD. However, the Board could not determine whether the applicant’s asserted PTSD actually outweighed the applicant’s multiple AWOLs and FTRs and wrongful use of marijuana without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without additional medical evidence, the Board was unable to determine if the applicant’s asserted PTSD outweighed the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Depression and Adjustment Disorder did not mitigate multiple AWOLs and FTRs and wrongful use of marijuana. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20200008586 1