1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 October 2020 b. Date Received: 5 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s military experience was cut short due to injuries sustained while conducting missions in Iraq. As a combat Soldier with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the applicant was placed in Garrison unit and the applicant found it impossible to function. The applicant contends others received less severe punishment for the same misconduct. The applicant misconduct was an isolated incident. The applicant was angry all the time with fits of rage. The applicant would burst into tears for no reason and was not getting support at home. The applicant was not sleeping and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The applicant served honorably and reenlisted. Since the discharge, the applicant sought help and was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The applicant also has other chronic illnesses and pains from War. The applicant went back to school and completed a recovery program. The applicant had honorable service and would like the board to take that into consideration. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 05 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 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: 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: 9 July 2009 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E04 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 February 2007 – 8 July 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (121 August 2008 – 20 August 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provided a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), dated 24 September 2018, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a service-connection evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse in remission, and TBI, which is 70-percent disabling. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, Letters from VA, Certificate of Completion, Water Distribution Operator Certificate, personal statement, college transcript 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant went back to school and completed a recovery program. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s service AMHRR is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends the applicant’s military experience was cut short due to injuries sustained while conducting missions in Iraq. As a combat Soldier with a TBI and PTSD, the applicant was placed in Garrison unit and the applicant found it impossible to function. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of mental health diagnosis. The applicant provided a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), dated 24 September 2018, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a service-connection evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse in remission, and TBI, which is 70-percent disabling. The applicant contends others received less severe punishment for the same misconduct. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant contends the misconduct was an isolated incident. 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. The applicant was not sleeping and began to self-medicate with alcohol. There is no evidence in the available AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant served honorably and reenlisted. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant went back to school and completed a recovery program. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is the applicant responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 diagnosis: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? No. By virtue of the VA service connecting PTSD at discharge, the assumption is at least some anxiety symptoms were present in-service. In service offender of IPV and child abuse. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that IPV, and child abuse is not a progression or sequela of trauma. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration all the evidence before the Board, including the Board Medical Advisor’s opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the discharge as the unmitigated misconduct - IPV and Child Abuse - the applicant’s service not sufficiently meritorious to be characterized as honorable. By committing the misconduct b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and reenlisted. The Board determined that General (Under Honorable Conditions), is proper and equitable because by committing the misconduct - IPV and Child Abuse there were no circumstances that warranted an upgrade because the applicant service was not sufficiently meritorious to be characterized as honorable. (2) The applicant contends others received less severe punishment for the same misconduct. The Board considered this contention and found that the applicant’s record confirms 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. In this case, the board also considered the medical opined from the Board's Medical Advisor a voting member that perpetration of intimate partner violence and child abuse is not a progression or sequela of trauma. Therefore, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the basis of separation. (3) The applicant contends the misconduct was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and found that the applicant’s service AMHRR is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to applicant’s discharge from the Army. The record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Also, 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. Therefore, the Board determined that due to the serious, repeated, and violent nature of the misconduct, a discharge upgrade is not appropriate. (4) The applicant contends the applicant’s military experience was cut short due to injuries sustained while conducting missions in Iraq. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and found that the applicant’s AMHRR is void of mental health diagnosis. The applicant provided a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), dated 24 September 2018, which reflects, in part, the applicant has a service-connection evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse in remission, and TBI, which is 70-percent disabling. (5) The applicant was not sleeping and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of Insomnia and self-medicating with alcohol. There is no evidence in the available AMHRR that the applicant ever sought assistance for insomnia before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. The applicant was referred by Unit multiple times to ASAP and were diagnosis with Alcohol Abuse but did not complete the program. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offense - IPV and Child Abuse, that was the basis for the applicant’s separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of IPV and Child Abuse. With this misconduct the applicant’s overall service was not sufficiently meritorious to be characterized as Honorable. 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, 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 AR20200010217 1