1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 October 2020 b. Date Received: 9 November 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 honorable conditions (general). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. b. The applicant states, in effect they had mental health issues that they were not fully aware of that affected their conduct and decision making. Their mental health issues also had a bearing on their discharge, currently they are unable to support their family and their self. They need their characterization of service upgraded because the one they have now does not reflect the person that they are. They were never a troublemaker during their military career, and they don’t want one incident to judge them as a whole, they understand they were wrong and should not have allowed themselves to get to that point. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 14-12C / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Honorable Conditions (General). b. Date of Discharge: 9 December 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 September 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: unlawfully strangled spouse on 19 April 2019 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (under honorable conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 September 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 November 2019 / General (under honorable conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 January 2019 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / Highschool / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 (Specialist) / 92F1P Petroleum Supply Specialist / 4 years, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / SWA Iraq (4 January 2017 – 4 September 2017) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAMC, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, IRCM-CS, GWTSM, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) An Enlistment/ Reenlistment Document provides the applicant reenlisted in the army at the rank of specialist (E-4) for 3 years on 10 July 2019. (2) A Sworn Statement document provides the applicant’s spouse made a statement under oath on 19 April 2019, “… then got mad and grabbed my shoulder really tight, I swung to get [their] hand off of me, [they] then grabbed my neck and that’s when I grabbed my taser”. (3) A Sworn Statement document provides the applicant made a statement under oath on 20 April 2019; “….” I told [spouse] I’m tired of this I want [spouse] to leave, [spouse] comes inside after me and I see [spouse] had their taser and the light was on, so I immediately grab [spouse] wrists and try to move [spouse] hand away from me” ….” I tried to get up because [spouse] is standing over me” …. “I go back to the front and then we started wrestling around and I ended up putting [spouse] in a choke hole so [spouse] could calm down. The applicant was asked and answered the following questions: * Did your [spouse] hit you? “Yes” * Did your [spouse] touch you with the taser while it was on? “Yes” * Explain “wrestling” with your [spouse]. “[spouse] was punching me in the head multiple times that’s when I picked [spouse] up by their legs then moved towards the hallway” * Why did you release the choke hold? “I didn’t want to inflict major damage to [spouse] just wanted to defend myself...” * Did you hit your [spouse] with an open or closed hand? “No, I never hit [spouse] “ * Did either your [spouse] or you throw a punch? “Yes my [spouse] did about 3 times” (4) An Agents Investigation Report (CID Form 34), dated 20 April 2019, provides the applicants spouse stated they were arguing about the applicants whereabouts from the previous night, in which they became physical towards each other which resulted in the spouse assaulting the applicant and the applicant strangling their spouse. (5) A Report of Medical Examination document dated 29 July 2019, provides the applicant received a separation medical assessment/examination and was cleared for administrative separation. (6) A Report of Mental Status Evaluation document, dated 1 August 2019, provides the applicant received a mental health evaluation that cleared them for administrative action from a behavioral health perspective. (7) A memorandum, 2D Brigade Combat Team 82D Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, subject: Request for retention on active duty, dated 4 September 2019 provides the applicant wrote a statement requesting to be retained in the army. They highlighted many rehabilitative measures that required their participation such as SUDCC, anger management and marriage counseling. (8) A letter of support from the applicant’s spouse provides, their spouse wrote a letter to command after finding out the applicant was getting chaptered, the letter provided insight on their relationship and described the incident as a “misunderstanding blown out of proportion by law enforcement”. (9) A memorandum, D Troop, 1ST Squadron, 73D Cavalry Regiment Fort Bragg, North Carolina subject: Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, dated 25 September 2019 provides the applicant’s immediate commander notified them of their intent to separate them for commission of a serious offense with a recommended characterization of service of General (under honorable conditions0. On 25 September 2019, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification and basis for separation, their available rights, to include the right to consult with counsel prior to submitting their election of rights. (10) On 30 September 2019 the applicant consulted with counsel; the document of void of the prejudices that may occur with a general characterization of service. (11) On 23 October 2019, the chain of command endorsed the commander’s recommendation to separate the applicant prior to their expiration terms of service with a general (under honorable conditions). On 12 November 2019 the appropriate authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be separated with a General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (12) A DD Form 214 shows on 9 December 2019 the applicant was discharged accordingly, they completed a total active service of 4 years and 16 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: none j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant states they have mental issues/PTSD however they did not provide any documentation to support their claim, they did provide a service- connected disability letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that shows they receive a 30 percent combined evaluation rating. (2) AMHRR Listed: Unspecified alcohol-related disorder, Irritability, and anger. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Discharge Review) application, Department of Veteran Affairs service-connected disability compensation letter, a Prime For Life certificate of completion issued by Fort Bragg Army Substance Abuse Program Agency, an Impact of Domestic Violence on Children’s Group certificate of completion issued by Fort Bragg Family Advocacy Program and 5 character letters that were submitted during their administrative separation in support of their application. * Character letter dated 5 July 2019 from an SGT/Team leader in the army describes the applicant has one of the hardest working soldiers in the unit, someone that was always the first to volunteer for tasks and “an outstanding soldier” that they would consider “an asset to the organization” * Character letter dated 5 July 2019 from an SGT in the army. describes the applicant as a loyal and dutiful soldier, and someone who possessed the “physical ability to be an outstanding soldier and the knowledge and professionalism to be an NCO”... “highly recommend [them] for retention in the United States Army” * Character letter dated 9 July 2019 from a solider in the army, provides insight on the applicant duties and accomplishments while they were deployed to Iraq. They “think people of [their] work ethic and character are too rare to lose over an incident of self- defense” * Character letter dated from a CPT/Civil Affairs student at the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, provides positive feedback about the applicant’s performance as a paratrooper. They nominated the applicant for ‘best performance” on several occasions throughout their tenure. “has the character and competence to resolve [their] past transgressions favorably and become a better person and paratrooper” they are positive that the applicant has the potential to be an “exemplary noncommissioned officer” * Character letter from a SSG US Army Retired, provides they served as the applicant’s leader and the “[applicant] was one of the best soldiers I have had the pleasure to lead in my 23 years of active service” 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted in support of 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 provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) An 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. (4) Except as otherwise indicated in this regulation, commanders must make maximum use of counseling and rehabilitation before determining that a Soldier has no potential for further useful service and, therefore, should be separated. In this regard, commanders will ensure that adequate counseling and rehabilitative measures are taken before initiating separation proceedings for the following reasons. Rehabilitative requirements are not required for individuals separated under Chapter 14-12c. * Involuntary separation due to parenthood * Personality disorder * Other designated physical or mental conditions * Entry-level performance and conduct * Unsatisfactory performance * Minor disciplinary infractions or a pattern of misconduct * Failure to meet body fat standards (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. 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. A soldier subject to this discharge under this regulation will be considered and processed for discharge even though he/she has filed an appeal or has stated his/her intention to do so. Paragraph 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. (6) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. * 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. * 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. g. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by the agency. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s DD-214 provides that the applicant received a General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, rather than an under other than honorable conditions (UOTCH) discharge which is normally considered appropriate for a soldier discharged for serious misconduct. b. Based on available evidence the applicant enlisted in the Army at the age 19, they deployed to Iraq for eight months in 2017 and reenlisted in the army after completing three honorable years of service. Three months after reenlisting they were involved in a domestic dispute with their spouse (another service member) at which the applicant was assaulted by their spouse, evidence provides the applicant strangled their spouse in self-defense which resulted in them being processed for administrative separation. c. A review of the record provides the administrative process was properly followed according to regulation. The applicant was notified of the intent to separate them for serious misconduct and acknowledged they understood the basis for separation and under the provisions AR 635-200, CH 14-12c. They applicant consulted with legal counsel and received the required health and mental health separation examination. d. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for members being separated for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. e. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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: Post-service connected for Mood Disorder, previously PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant asserts behavioral health conditions existed in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was able to recall the event initiating the disagreement, physically “wrestling” to get a phone, his wife telling him she’d have to tase him if he didn’t stop to protect herself and trying to get the taser from her leading him to put her in a headlock. At no point does the documentation, to include the applicant’s own statements, reflect any relation between combat trauma and the IPV strangulation, e.g., loss of control, flashback, etc. Regarding Mood Disorder, the specific Mood Disorder is depression related; depressive symptoms are unrelated to engaging in a physical altercation leading to strangulation. (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 Post-service connected for Mood Disorder, previously PTSD, did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention: The applicant did not make any contentions. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's Mood Disorder and PTSD does not mitigate the applicant's unlawfully strangled spouse offense. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were proper and equitable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 / 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 AR20200009887 1