1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 September 2020 b. Date Received: 15 September 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 and a narrative reason change. b. The applicant states, in effect that when they deployed to Iraq, the things the witnessed started their PTSD and heavy drinking. All the problems they had while serving were due to alcohol. When they deployed to Afghanistan things got bad for them, and they lost their close friends which resulted in them consuming alcohol more frequently to fight the pain and depression. They were discharged for an alcohol related incident, and after being separated they were diagnosed with PTSD, they currently take medication and receive therapy on a weekly basis at the VA. They no longer consume alcohol and has learned how to live life without it. They served their country, jumped out of planes, fought bravely in battle, lead soldiers successfully and believe they were a great asset for the army. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board also voted no change to the reentry of RE-3. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, CH 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Honorable Conditions (General) b. Date of Discharge: 3 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: DUI on 6 June 2015 (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived the administrative board 20 August 2015 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 August 2015 / General (under honorable conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 August 2008 / 5 years 2 months. (Extended their reenlistment 6 May 2015) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / [GED] / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: SSG (E-6) / 12N3P P5 Horizontal Construction Engineer / 7 years, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 August 2008 - 30 September 2013 / Honorable Service e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / Iraq (1 June 2009 - 31 May 2010), Afghanistan (11 February 2013 - 21 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACMV-CS, ARCOM-V, ARCOM-3, AAM-7, MUC-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, PDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB, COA-4 g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2012 - 28 February 2013 / Among the Best 1 March 2013 - 31 January 2014 / Among the Best 1 February 2014 - 10 June 2014 / Among the Best 11 June 2014 - 10 June 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) A memorandum, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, subject: A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 28 October 2010, provides the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence on 2 October 2010 when they were pulled over for failure to maintain their lane, an Intoximeter test determined their alcohol content level was .15%, which was over the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle in North Carolina. (2) A memorandum, 738TH Engineer Support Company, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, subject: ASAP enrollment for SPC [applicant] provides the applicant participated and completed the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 18 November 2010, additionally they completed an improved drivers training course. (3) An Oath of Extension of Enlistment document provides the applicant voluntarily extended their 4-year re-enlistment contractual obligation from 1 October 2013 by 14 months on 6 May 2015 making their new ETS date 30 November 2018. (4) A Monroe County Adult Arrest form provides that on 6 June 2015 the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) after being involved in a singular vehicle crash; they struck a palm tree at a speed of less than 5 miles per hour. When authorities arrived, the applicant was sleeping behind the wheel, the officer knocked on the window several times to awake them. The applicant's breath had a strong odor of alcohol, they had red glassy eyes and a slurred speech. They failed the Field Sobriety Exercises and refused to submit a sample of their breath to determine their breath alcohol content (5) A memorandum, Headquarters, Fort Stewart, Georgia, subject: A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 28 July 2015, provides the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence on 6 June 2015 after the Key West Police Department responded to a traffic accident that they were involved in. They acknowledged receipt of the reprimand and elected to not submit a statement on their behalf and elected to not voluntarily participate in the Courtesy Patrol Rehabilitative program. (6) On 6 August 2015 the applicant's immediate commander notified them of their intent to separate them for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c with a recommended characterization of service of Honorable. 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. (7) On 12 August 2015, after having consulted with counsel the applicant completed their election of rights, and voluntary waived consideration of their case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon them receiving an Honorable discharge. Their immediate commander and battalion commander recommended approval of their request to waive the administrative separation board and receive an honorable discharge; brigade commander recommended disapproval. (8) On 20 August 2015, after having consulted with counsel the applicant completed their election of rights, indicating they understood the prejudices that may occur in receiving a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. They waived the administrative separation board and did not submit statements on their behalf. (9) On 21 August 2015 the appropriate authority reviewed the applicant's separation packet and directed the applicant be separated with a General under honorable conditions characterization of service. (10) A DD Form 214 shows on 3 September 2015 the applicant was discharged accordingly, they completed total active service of 7 years and 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Applicant states they have PTSD; however, they did not provide any medical documentation that supports their PTSD diagnosis; they provided their summary of benefits letter from Veteran Affairs (VA) which provides they are 80 percent service connected and receiving special monthly compensation for their disabilities. (2) AMHRR Listed: The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP); completed 18 November 2010. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293 (Discharge Review) application and a copy of their summary of benefits letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs which provides the applicant is 80 percent service connected; also receiving a special monthly compensation due to the severity of their service-connected disabilities. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has stopped drinking alcohol and has learned how to cope in life without drinking. 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 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) governs the program and identifies Army policy on alcohol and other drug abuse, and responsibilities. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. It provides the ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier's chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army's missions. Individuals who do not self-refer for treatment and are subsequently identified as positive for controlled substances for which they do not have a valid prescription may be considered in violation of the UCMJ for drug misuse/abuse. f. 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). g. 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 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 the available evidence the applicant enlisted in the army at the age of 21 on 20 August 2008. After completing 9 months and 12 days of their contractual obligation the applicant deployed to Iraq for twelve months, 4 months after returning from Iraq, they received their first DUI. They deployed to Afghanization in 2013 and had another DUI incident 23 months after they returned. The applicant hit a tree with a passenger in the vehicle, they were found sleeping behind the wheel when authorities arrived at the scene with a strong odor of alcohol, and glassy red eyes. They failed a series of standardized field sobriety tests and refused to submit a breathalyzer test. They received their second General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for driving under the influence and was 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 under the provisions AR 635-200, CH 14-12c. They elected to consult with counsel and subsequently waived the right to have their case considered by the administrative separation board. A medical and mental examination was required, the AMHRR is void of those examinations. 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: the applicant was diagnosed in-service with ADHD. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with ADHD. (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 trauma and substance use, the basis is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the applicant's PTSD diagnosis outweighed the basis of separation (DUI). b. Prior Decisions Cited: None c. Response to Contentions: The applicant did not make any contentions. d. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board also voted no change to the reentry of RE-3. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board found sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors (Length, Quality, Combat) and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's PTSD does mitigate the applicant's DUI. 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 inequitable. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200010077 1