1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 June 2020 b. Date Received: 24 June 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 other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant had to ask a chaplain for assistance to help with getting into inpatient care while assigned to the rear detachment because the chain of command would not help. The applicant feels the chain of command failed to help when asked, which is a direct violation of all policies within the military then and now. The applicant has one deployment to Afghanistan and two tours in Korea and the official military personnel file shows the applicant was not a problem Solider while serving in the military. The applicant was discharged after one offense. If the current policies were in place and the applicant’s chain of command followed policies and regulations, the applicant would not have been discharged. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 10 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 February 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / High School Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14H10, Air Defense Enhanced Early Warning System Operator / 6 years, 9 months / 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 July 2008 – 11 February 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (27 March 2011 - 14 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, NATOMDL, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 15 May 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 9 January 2014 and for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 5 August 2014; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 21 January 2015. FLAGS / AEA codes: AA, BA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9V i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability rating decision, dated 4 October 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, unspecified depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder (also claimed as anxiety, nightmares, night tremors, and fear) effective 1 October 2018. The VA made their decision based on the applicant’s self-referral in June 2014 to behavioral health seeking help with dealing with anxiety. The applicant confirmed being admitted into the hospital from 8-18 June 2014 after verbalizing suicidal ideation; and the applicant was medically referred to behavioral health in December 2014. On 9 April 2015 the applicant reported that 2 weeks prior to the appointment, the applicant’s (then) spouse informed the medical tech that a red spot on the applicant’s (then) spouse’s breast was the result of the applicant striking the applicant’s (then) spouse while the applicant was asleep. The applicant did not recall the incident, but the applicant’s chain of command issued a no-contact order, which the applicant subsequently violated by sending cell phone text messages. On the appointment date, the discharge review board was preparing to administratively separate the applicant from service under Chapter 14- 12, which includes “the soldier committing a single act of serious misconduct which could be punished by a punitive discharge.” The applicant reported to have understood the serious misconduct to be noted as “assault of [the applicant’s] spouse; violation of no-contact order; and missed appointments.” (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states 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. (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. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes 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. 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-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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the specific partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant had to ask a chaplain for assistance to help with getting into inpatient care while assigned to the rear detachment because the chain of command would not help. The applicant feels the chain of command failed to help when asked, which is a direct violation of all policies within the military then and now. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention that the chain of command was not helpful. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the applicant’s case separation packet. The applicant contends, in effect, to have had one deployment to Afghanistan and two tours in Korea and the official military personnel file shows the applicant was not a problem Solider while serving in the military. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, to have been discharged after one offense. If the current policies were in place and the applicant’s chain of command followed policies and regulations, the applicant would not have been discharged. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 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/experiences: In- service diagnoses included Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Panic Disorder, and Personality Disorder traits; although, documentation is sufficient to support a full diagnosis of Personality Disorder. The applicant was the offender of IPV on multiple occasions. Post- service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. In- service diagnoses included Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Panic Disorder, and Personality Disorder traits; although, documentation is sufficient to support a full diagnosis of Personality Disorder. The applicant was the offender of IPV on multiple occasions. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that chronic domestic violence with continual no contact order violations are not a progression or sequela of PTSD. Accordingly, there is no medication mitigation. Similarly, the applicant’s in-service diagnoses also do not have a nexus with the misconduct as an individual still has the cognitive capacity to make deliberate decisions. Rather, it is more likely the misconduct, fluctuating anxiety, suicidal threats, and even drug dependence were a functioning of a Personality Disorder. Although a Personality Disorder provides context, it is not mitigating as an individual is fully aware of their choices and actions and able to make purposeful, conscious decisions understanding right from wrong and potential consequences. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Panic Disorder, and Personality Disorder traits outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation - intimate partner violence on multiple occasions, violation of no contact order and missing appointments. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Board considered the applicant’s six years of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the additional misconduct found in applicant’s file of intimate partner violence on multiple occasions, violation of no contact order and missing appointments. The applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant had to ask a chaplain for assistance to help with getting into inpatient care while assigned to the rear detachment because the chain of command would not help. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s statement during its deliberations; however, the board determined that because the applicant did not provide supporting documentation or evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity and the applicant’s AMHRR is void of the applicant’s case separation packet. Therefore, the board voted that this contention alone did not outweigh the basis for separation outlined above in section 9a (4) and 9b (1) of this document. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, to have had one deployment to Afghanistan and two tours in Korea and the official military personnel file shows the applicant was not a problem Solider while serving in the military. The Board considered this contention and the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By committing the misconducts outlined above in section 9a (4) and 9b (1) of this document the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, to have been discharged after one offense. The Board considered this contention and in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, including the severity and frequency of the applicant’s documented offenses outlined above in section 9a (4) and 9b (1) of this document the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Panic Disorder, and Personality Disorder traits did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of - intimate partner violence on multiple occasions, violation of no contact order and missing appointments. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200010121 1