Applicant's Name: 

   a.	Application Date: 10 December 2019

   b.	Date Received: 19 May 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 believe that the character of 
service did not account for underlining medical conditions and the characterization prior to the 
rehabilitation. The applicant contends having buried a close friend in the unit, witnessed the 
death of another, and buried his grandfather. Following those events, the applicant refers to 
undiagnosed sleep disturbance and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); for both of which the 
applicant was pending VA disability claims at the time of his application. The applicant also 
refers trying to better deal with issues as well as school so that the applicant may better his 
career. Lastly prior to being discharge, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant 
be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable.

   b.	Board Type and Decision:  In a records review conducted on 9 June 2023, and by a   
3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the 
applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's alcohol rehabilitation 
failure.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the 
characterization of service to Honorable.  The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code 
and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them.
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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure /          
AR 635-200 / Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions)

   b.	Date of Discharge: 11 December 2017

   c.	Separation Facts: 

       (1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 October 2017

       (2)	Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for 
failing to complete rehabilitative treatment

       (3)	Recommended Characterization: Honorable

       (4)	Legal Consultation Date: NIF

       (5)	Administrative Separation Board: NA
       (6)	Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2017 / General (Under 
Honorable Conditions)

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

   a.	Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 May 2014 / 4 years, 39 weeks

   b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 129

   c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 17C10, Cyber Operations 
Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 29 days

   d.	Prior Service / Characterizations: None 

   e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service: None

   f.	Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

   g.	Performance Ratings: None

   h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander dated 15 
June 2017, "AR 15-6 Findings and Recommendation", SGT O., SPC H. / (applicant), and SPC 
L., indicates the applicant acted alone in creating a story to deceive the chain of command. SGT 
O., and SPC L., did not conspire with the applicant to specifically deceive the chain of 
command, but negligently did not present the truth afterwards.

FG Article 15 dated 29 August 2017, for on or about 5 June 2017, with intent to deceive a 
commissioned officer, made an official statement, which statement was totally false, and was 
known to be so false; and on 5 June 2017, for the purpose of avoiding presence at his assigned 
place of duty feign a mental lapse. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, reduction to 
E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $799.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), and extra 
duty and restriction for 45 days.

Memorandum for Commander dated 10 October 2017, indicating the applicant was medically 
referred to the Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care (SUDCC) due to excessive alcohol use. 
The applicant was seen for a SUDCC evaluation on 10 March 2017 and diagnosed with Alcohol 
Use Disorder-Moderate. A Rehabilitation Team Meeting (RTM) was held on 14 March 2017 with 
the applicant and Command where Command concurred with the recommendation for 
enrollment in SUDCC.

The applicant was hospitalized at Eisenhower Army Medical Center on 1 September 2017 for 
behavioral health reasons and he voluntarily admitted to his Provider on 6 September 2017 that 
he used alcohol. It was recommended that the applicant be referred to the Residential 
Treatment Facility (RTF).

The applicant was admitted to the RTF on 26 September 2017. The applicant was discharged 
from the RTF on 4 October 2017 as a Rehabilitation Failure due to inability to follow rules and 
inappropriate behavior.

On 5 October 2017, the applicant's command advised they were pursuing separation under 
Chapter 9, Rehabilitation Failure. The SUDCC Team supported the decision to discharge the 
applicant as an unsuccessful rehabilitation.

Several negative counseling statement for various acts of misconduct and duty performance.

   i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return: None

   j.	Behavioral Health Condition(s): See Below

       (1)	Applicant provided: Decision letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
awarding the applicant 90 percent service-connected disability (70 percent related to post-
traumatic disorder (PTSD))

       (2)	AMHRR Listed: NIF

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; unit commander's recommendation of 
characterization; death certificate / obituary of another Soldier; medical progress notes; decision 
letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and character reference letters.

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), dated 25 September 2019, 
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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or 
other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program 
(ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate 
in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for 
continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.

       (5)	Paragraph 9-4 stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will 
be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level 
status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is 
mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge 
process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85.
   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 "JPD" as 
the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure.  

   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. The applicant's Army Military Human 
Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were 
carefully reviewed.

Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for failing 
to complete rehabilitative treatment. The applicant was medical referral to the Substance Use 
Disorder Clinical Care (SUDCC) due to excessive alcohol use. The applicant was seen for a 
SUDCC evaluation on 10 March 2017 and diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder-Moderate. A 
Rehabilitation Team Meeting (RTM) was held on 14 March 2017 with the applicant and 
Command where Command concurred with the recommendation for enrollment in SUDCC.

The applicant was hospitalized at Eisenhower Army Medical Center on 1 September 2017 for 
behavioral health reasons and he voluntarily admitted to his Provider on 6 September 2017 that 
he used alcohol. It was recommended that the applicant be referred to the Residential 
Treatment Facility (RTF).

The applicant was admitted to the RTF on 26 September 2017. The applicant was discharged 
from the RTF on 4 October 2017 as a Rehabilitation Failure due to inability to follow rules and 
inappropriate behavior.

On 5 October 2017, the applicant's command advised they were pursuing separation under 
Chapter 9, Rehabilitation Failure. The SUDCC Team supported the decision to discharge the 
applicant as an unsuccessful rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for 
a discharge under this chapter is "Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure)," and the 
separation code is "JPD."

The applicant seeks relief contending the character of service did not account for underlining 
medical conditions and the characterization prior to the rehabilitation. The applicant contends 
having buried a close friend in the unit, witnessed the death of another, and buried his 
grandfather. Following those events, the applicant refers to undiagnosed sleep disturbance and 
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); for both of which he was pending VA disability claims at 
the time of his application. The applicant also refers trying to better deal with issues as well as 
school so that he may better his career. Lastly prior to being discharge, the applicant's 
commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of 
honorable.

The applicant's contentions were noted; documents submitted by the applicant with the 
application i.e., from the Department of Veterans Affairs awarding the applicant 90 percent 
service-connected disability (70 percent related to post-traumatic disorder (PTSD)). It should be 
noted the available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant 
was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during discharge processing that 
would have warranted separation processing through medical channels.  

Also, the unit commander's recommendation was noted; however, it should be noted the 
separation authority was not bound by the recommendation of the unit commander for the 
applicant to receive a characterization of service of honorable. The separation authority could 
direct that the applicant's service be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable 
conditions).

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 was 
diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder and Other Depressive Disorder. Post-service, he 
was initially service connected for Adjustment Disorder, currently Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder.														
		
       (2)	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The 
applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Disorder and Other Depressive Disorder.	
													
       (3)	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. 
The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, given the nexus 
between PTSD and self-medication, the applicant's alcohol rehabilitation failure is mitigated.	
															 
       (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 the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's alcohol rehabilitation failure basis of 
separation. 

   b.	Response to Contention(s): 

       (1)	The applicant seeks relief contending the characterization of service did not account 
for underlining medical conditions and the characterization prior to the rehabilitation. The Board 
liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the 
applicant's alcohol rehabilitation failure basis of separation. Therefore, an upgrade to the 
characterization of service is warranted.
       (2)	The applicant's contends applicant's commander recommended the applicant be 
discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. 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 outweighed the applicant's alcohol rehabilitation 
failure basis for separation.

   c.	The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the 
applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's alcohol rehabilitation 
failure.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the 
characterization of service to Honorable.  The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code 
and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them.

   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 applicant's alcohol rehabilitation failure. Thus, 
the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. 

       (2)	The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or 
accompanying SPD code as 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:  Yes 

	b.	Change Characterization to:  Honorable

	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
AR20200009417
1