1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: 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, he requests a discharge to be able to receive his benefits, which are absolutely necessary to his future. The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge from the Army for alcohol rehabilitation failure. The incident which led to the applicant’s discharge was when he was caught drinking while under orders not to drink. The applicant is working full-time, trying to support his daughter. The applicant needs his GI Bill to attend college, support his daughter, and find stable employment which pays well. In a records review conducted on 24 March 2022, 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant had an alcohol related incident in October 2010, which led to a recommendation for inpatient rehabilitation. The applicant had another alcohol related incident in December 2010, before entering inpatient rehabilitation. On 19 April 2011, the applicant had a third alcohol related incident and received a Field Grade Article 15. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 June 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 January 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25S10, SATCOM System Operator-Maintainer / 2 years, 6 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 18 May 2010, for disobeying a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel J.B. by wrongfully smoking in the barracks room (28 April 2011). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 25 May 2011, for being disrespectful in language toward Staff Sergeant (SSG) N.M., by saying to her, “I don’t give a fuck” (19 April 2011); disrespectful in language toward SSG N.M. by saying to her, “fuck you” (19 April 2011); disobeying a lawful order from SSG N. M. to go to Parade Rest (19 April 2011); and, disobeying a lawful order from MAJ P.W., not to consume alcohol (20 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memorandum), dated 10 May 2011, reflects the applicant was referred to ASAP by his commander on 5 May 2011 [sic]. The initial screening and evaluation was made by the ASAP staff, revealing the primary substance of use was alcohol abuse. The rehabilitation team determined the applicant’s problem was significant enough to require outpatient treatment for a substance use disorder. The applicant had an alcohol related incident in October 2010, which led to the recommendation for inpatient rehabilitation and change in diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence. On 20 April 2011, First Sergeant L. informed ASAP the applicant had a third alcohol related incident. The rehabilitation team recommended elimination from the service, under AR 635-200, Chapter 9. The applicant’s rehabilitation team met on 30 July 2010 [sic], and, determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, para 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant’s lack of progress. Discharge from military service should be effected. Report of Medical Examination, dated 28 May 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: ETOH Dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is working full-time to support his daughter and desires to pursue his college education. 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 600-85 defines the Limited Use Policy and states unless waived under the circumstances listed in paragraph 10–13d, Limited Use Policy prohibits the use by the government of protected evidence against a Soldier in actions under the UCMJ or on the issue of characterization of service in administrative proceedings. Additionally, the policy limits the characterization of discharge to “Honorable” if protected evidence is used. Protected evidence under this policy is limited to: Results of command-directed drug or alcohol testing that are inadmissible le under the MRE; Results of a drug or alcohol test collected solely as part of a safety mishap investigation undertaken for accident analysis and the development of countermeasures; Information concerning drug or alcohol abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use, including the results of a drug or alcohol test, collected as a result of a Soldier’s emergency medical care solely for an actual or possible alcohol or other drug overdose; A Soldier’s self-referral to BH for SUD treatment; Admissions and other information concerning alcohol or other drug abuse or possession of drugs incidental to personal use occurring prior to the date of initial referral to treatment and provided by Soldiers as part of their initial entry into SUD treatment; Drug or alcohol test results, if the Soldier voluntarily submits to a DoD or Army SUD treatment before the Soldier has received an order to submit for a lawful drug or alcohol test; and, the results of a drug or alcohol test administered solely as a required part of a DoD or Army SUD treatment program. e. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (5) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600–85. 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 “JPD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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-4 applies to a 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. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates on 30 July 2010 (date appears to be inaccurate), the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant did not have the potential for continued military service. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant’s lack of progress. The applicant contends the incident which led to his discharge was when he was caught drinking while under orders not to drink. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects he had three alcohol related incidents; and was enrolled in ASAP; and, he was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence. The applicant was determined to be an alcohol rehabilitation failure. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends he is working full-time to support his daughter and desires to pursue his college education. 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. 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 applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder and Depression that could mitigate applicant’s basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder and Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical condition or experience does not mitigate the basis of separation. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that applicant’s primary BH condition, substance abuse, was the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation. While applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder and Depression, the Board’s Medical Advisor opined that applicant’s Depression was alcohol-induced, further supporting the conclusion that substance abuse was applicant’s primary condition. Further, the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that either applicant’s Adjustment Disorder or Depression was a contributing factor towards applicant’s Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure that led to applicant’s separation, and therefore cannot mitigate that wrongful conduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the incident which led to his discharge was he was caught drinking when he was under orders not to drink. The Board considered this contention but found the applicant’s Alcohol Rehabilitative Failure, along with other misconduct were the medically unmitigated proper and equitable basis for applicant’s separation. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (4) The applicant contends he is working full-time to support his daughter and desires to pursue his college education. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not warrant any change to the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contentions 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, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Depression did not mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation, including applicant’s alcohol rehabilitation failure, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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 AR20210000165 1