1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 August 2020 b. Date Received: 25 August 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, a change to their separation code, reentry code, and narrative reason change. b. The applicant states, in effect that their actions were a direct result of undiagnosed PTSD, and that their condition was not diagnosed until after they were discharged from the Army. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge - PTSD diagnoses. 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 determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Honorable Conditions (General) b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: * The applicant was driving under the influence (DUI) on 29 April 2016 * Left their weapon unsecured on 22 September 2016 (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 March 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: SGT (E-5) / 91B2P Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 5 years, 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None/ Afghanistan (27 June 2012 - 24 October 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, COA, PRCHTBAD, DMB-MECH g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2015 - 13 June 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) An Enlistment/ Reenlistment Document provides that the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army at the rank of specialist (E-4) for a period of 4 years on 27 March 2014. (2) A Fort Walton Beach Police Department DUI Documentation Packet provides that 29 April 2016 the applicant was pulled over by civilian authorities for speed violation, failure to maintain lane and two 911 calls referencing reckless driving behaviors of swerving, hands off steering wheel, revving engine, hitting or nearly hitting bridges, and nearly hitting other cars. When pulled over the officer indicated the applicant fumbled with wallet/papers, was not wearing shoes, and eyes appeared droopy/drowsy. A roadside sobriety test was conducted, and they failed. The applicant agreed to take a breathalyzer test, the Reporting Officer Narrative indicated two breath samples were 0.188 and 0.179, respectively they read the applicant their Miranda Rights, which were waived, and they were issued a DUI and traffic citation for driving under the influence and exceeding the posted speed limit and transported to county jail. (3) A Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) document provides that on 2 May 2016 the applicant was flagged for alcohol abuse. (4) The AMHRR is void of a separation packet, however on 6 July 2016 they commander flagged them for involuntary separation (5) A memorandum Department of the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, subject: Alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment (ADAPT) completion, dated 3 June 2016 provides the applicant attended and completed Alcohol Brief Counseling sessions. (6) A certificate of completion dated 7 June 2016, provides the applicant participated in an evaluation and completed a level one, twelve-hour substance abuse and driving education course. (7) A memorandum, 7th Special Forces Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, subject: A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 1 July 2016, reprimanded the applicant for driving under the influence on 29 April 2016 when Fort Walton Beach police stopped the applicant for exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour and found an open bottle of alcohol behind the seat. After failing a series of sobriety tests the applicant was arrested and transported to the police department where a chemical breath test revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.17 percent. (a) The applicant's behavior demonstrated a complete lack of judgement and responsibility, putting themselves and other in the community at risk. Their conduct discredit them from the Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) and the U.S. Army and constituted a serious departure from high standards of integrity and professionalism expected of a noncommissioned officer. The behavior cannot and would not be tolerated and forces the commander to consider suitability for continued service as a noncommissioned officer. (b) The applicant was required to acknowledge the GOMOR and provided 7 seven days submit a written rebuttal prior to the commander determination to file the reprimand locally or in their permanent record. (8) On 12 July 2016 the applicant submitted their rebuttal to the GOMOR and requested that it not be filed in their Military Personnel Records, stating they accepted full responsibility for their poor decision; not only did they let down the organization, but also the soldier who looked up to them it was their intent to remain resilient, accept the consequence of their action and drive forward. (a) Although unfortunate circumstances had occurred, As part of their remedial action, they have undergone the following: * completed DUI Level 1 school * re-continued counseling session in the psychological center * enrolled in hope counseling to learn psychological cues for alcohol abuse * completed the Air Force Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program; and * prepared a resiliency class on Army Value to reiterate the importance of proper decision making (b) In support of their rebuttal, they enclosed two letters of character reference, a copy of their completion of ADAPT and DUI Level I school, and a copy of a mental health clinical record dated 1 July 2016, that shows they were diagnosed under AXIS I: * Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder * Unspecified Sleep Wake Disorder * Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder * Obstructive Sleep Apnea (9) On 6 July 2016, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and indicated they would be submitting a rebuttal. The AMHRR is void of a separation packet, however, on the same day a memorandum, 7th Special Forces Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, subject: letter of intent provides the commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them for commission of a serious offense. They would require a physical and mental status examination. In review of this memorandum administrative error occurred by referring to a "Sergeant M__" vice the applicant. (10) The AMHRR is void of the entire separation proceedings and the required medical examination and mental health status report. (11) A copy of a DD Form 214 that shows the applicant was discharged on 2 July 2017 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct, Separation Code: JKQ, Reentry Code: 3, and a characterization of service of Under Honorable Conditions (General) and completed 5 years and 6 months of NET Active Service this period. The DD Form 214 is signed by the applicant, the Remark section shows "completed first full term of service" but does not identify the characterization of this term. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: * Veteran Affairs Decision/ Evidence document, 23 December 2019 provides the applicant received a 50 percent service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder with sever alcohol use disorder * A VA benefits documents, 24 July 2020, provides the applicant has a combined rating of 60 percent (2) AMHRR Listed: A mental health clinical note, 1 July 2016, provides the applicant had symptoms consistent with chronic PTSD; symptoms related to a traumatic incident that they experienced while deployed. They were scheduled for weekly appointments in the Psychological Performance Program on Eglin Air Force Base. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: * DD Form 293 (Application for Discharge Review) * Commander's Report [of Separation] which is incomplete, unsigned, and undated and provides the applicant was being separated for driving under the influence on 29 April 2016 and for returning from the range at 2300 hours without their weapon on 22 September 2016. * A VA decision/evidence letter that provides they are service connected for PTSD with sever alcohol use disorder. A benefits document that provides they are 60 percent service connected (VA Benefits). * Five letters of character reference that appear to have been submitted at some point in the GOMOR and separation proceeding process and provide an overview of the applicant's personal and professional work ethic, professionalism, and leadership. 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) 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. (5) 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. 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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. h. Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes policy and procedures regarding separation documents, it states in the preparation of the DD Form 214 for soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except "Honorable," enter in item 18 (Remarks) "Continuous Honorable Active Service From (first day of service which DD Form 214 was not issued) until (date before commencement of current enlistment). i. 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 that 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. b. Review of the record provides administrative irregularity in the proper retention of official records, specifically, the AMHRR is void of the entire separation packet, due to the lack of evidence we are unable to provide the specific facts and circumstances, however, based on the available evidence, the enlisted at the age of 18 years and deployed to Afghanistan after 10 months, and 24 days in the Army. They honorably completed their first term of service and re- enlisted for a period of four years. Approximately two years into their contractual obligation they were arrested by civilian authorities for driving under the influence and exceeding the speed limit. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the record provides: (1) The applicant was flagged for involuntary separation and a memorandum signed by their immediate commander that states the applicant was notified of the intent to separate them for misconduct. Additionally, the applicant provided an unsigned copy of a Commander's Report regarding their separation that indicated the applicant was being separated for a DUI and returning from the range without their weapon. Notable administrative error on the Intent to sperate memorandum; specifically identifying the applicant and another service member. They completed 2 years, 1 month, and 3 days of their 4-year reenlistment contractual obligation. (2) Prior to undergoing separation proceedings, the applicant was required to receive a medical and mental health examination, The AMHRR is void of evidence clearing the applicant for separation. It does provide a one-page clinical record dated 1 July 2016, that shows the applicant was attending weekly mental health and participating in weekly group sessions, and an AXIS I diagnosis that included PTSD; and (3) A properly constituted DD Form 214, signed by the applicant that shows administrative error in item 12 (Remarks) is missing the required "CONTINUOS HONORABLE SERVICE" statement according to Army Regulation 635-8. c. 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. d. 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. KURTA FACTORS. 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 an in- service diagnosis of PTSD. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and substance abuse, the DUI is mitigated. However, leaving a weapon unsecured was unrelated. (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 available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD fully outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - DUI and leaving a weapon unsecured - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends that the misconduct that led to their discharge was mitigated by their undiagnosed PTSD and provides a copy of their VA Ratings in support of their petition. The Board considered this contention and determined it was valid and voted to upgrade based on the applicant's PTSD and in-service mitigating factors (Length, Quality, Combat). c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge - PTSD diagnoses. 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 determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the Board found sufficient evidence in-service mitigating factors (Length, Quality, Combat) that outweigh the applicant leaving a weapon unsecured and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's PTSD mitigates 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 were inequitable. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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 Board determined the current RE code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 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 AR20200010109 1