1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 April 2020 b. Date Received: 28 April 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, on 16 August 2019, the applicant was in a motor vehicle accident and was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). After the incident coworkers at work noticed a shift in the applicant’s behavior and declined work performance. The applicant struggled with interacting with others. Before the applicant’s accident, the applicant was a law-abiding citizen in the civilian world and had a top-secret clearance. The applicant’s injuries have also interfered with sleep which has caused poor judgment in the applicant’s interactions at work and may likely follow into the civilian world. After the accident, the applicant was still hard working and maintained a positive attitude at all times. Even in the face of adversity, the applicant maintained a great work ethic, regardless of the nature of the task given. The applicant remained skilled at technical operations, and was willing to thoroughly research answers when faced with questions that stood in the way of completing the mission. An honorable discharge would allow the applicant to contribute to civil society and proceed on with life after the Army without limitations. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 April 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: c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 March 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant continuously disrespected the support channel and command on several occasions by lying, failing to report to the appointed place of duty and by fleeing the scene of an accident. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 March 2020 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 April 2020 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 February 2017 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25S10, SATCOM System Operator-Maintainer / 3 years, 2 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Company Grade Article 15, dated 7 October 2019, for being the driver of a vehicle at the time of an accident in which said vehicle was involved, and having knowledge of said accident, wrongfully leave the scene of the accident without making identity known on or about 16 August 2019. The punishment consisted of reduction to private first class (PFC/E-3); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Field Grade Article 15, dated 7 February 2020, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the place of duty on or about 10 January 2020. And failing to obey a lawful order given by a senior noncommissioned officer to be outside and ready by 0730 on or about 13 January 2020. The punishment consisted of reduction to private two (PV2/E-2); forfeiture of $971.00 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 17 August 2020; extra duty for 30 days; restriction for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. United Stated Army Garrison General Rhineland-Pfalz Memorandum, Law Enforcement Report - 1st Status, dated 17 August 2019, reflects the applicant committed inattentive driving and caused a traffic accident on 16 August 2019. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag) reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action effective 30 January 2020. DA Form 268 reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated effective 18 February 2020. The applicant has 10 Developmental Counseling Forms for several acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A medical encounters history report reflects: A follow up visit at the TBI Rehab Clinic, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, reflects a diagnosis of unspecified symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness and personal history of TBI, highest level of severity mild (Glasgow Coma 13-15), LOC<30min, post trauma amnesia<24hr, post trauma amnesia 0-1 day. A medical record diagnosis history reflects: 29 January 2020 - 10 March 2020 - Personal history of TBI, highest level of severity mild (Glasgow Coma 13-15), LOC<30min, post trauma amnesia 0-1 day, alteration of consciousness <24hr. 7 February 2020 and 26 February 2020 - Personal history of TBI. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 13 March 2020, 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 TBI with positive results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety, acute and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-mixed type. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214 Worksheet, Separation Orders, Operational Certifications (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command Form 31.5), Medical Records, DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) for promotion recommendation, DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), and Awards. 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, in effect, the incident on 16 August 2019 changed the applicant’s behavior and work performance declined, including struggling with interacting with others. The applicant submitted medical documents indicating a diagnosis of personal history of TBI. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 12 March 2020, which indicates the applicant recognized right from wrong. The MSE reflects diagnoses of an adjustment disorder with anxiety, acute and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-mixed type. The applicant also submitted and the AMHRR has medical documents that reflects a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s injuries interfered with sleep which caused poor judgment through the applicant’s interactions at work and may likely follow into the civilian world. 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, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge would allow the applicant to contribute to civil society and proceed on with life after the Army without limitations. 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: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Concussion with later notation of possible history of mTBI although void of active symptoms or diagnosis of TBI. Post-service, a C&P reflects Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder secondary to MVA, but the applicant is not service connected for PTSD or TBI rather Pain Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Concussion with later notation of possible history of mTBI although void of active symptoms or TBI diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that although a TBI could partially mitigate the misconduct, medical records contradict the applicant's self-assertion as he was not diagnosed with a TBI even after assessment through the TBI clinic nor is he service connected for TBI. Moreover, the applicant's Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Concussion are not mitigating as they do not impact his ability to make conscious choices, such as wrongfully leaving the scene of an accident, and understanding right from wrong and related consequences. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the medical record contradicts the applicant’s asserted TBI condition, leaving insufficient evidence to outweigh the applicant’s pattern of misconduct discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the traffic incident on 16 August 2019 changed the applicant’s behavior and work performance declined, including struggling with interacting with others. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the medical record contradicts the applicant’s asserted TBI condition, leaving insufficient evidence to outweigh the applicant’s pattern of misconduct discharge. (2) The applicant contends the applicant’s injuries interfered with sleep which caused poor judgment through the applicant’s interactions at work. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that that there is insufficient evidence of sleep-related conditions in official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the applicant’s pattern of misconduct. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow the applicant to contribute to civil society and proceed on with life after the Army without limitations. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Concussion, and TBI did not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s pattern of misconduct. 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 General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of 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 AR20200009010 1