1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, preexisting mental illness was aggravated while serving in the military, and after being released without receiving treatment, the disability progressed until it led to legal issues and convictions. The applicant was never aware of the issues because they were never explained but were diagnosed at a very young age caused by stressful events. At the age of five, the applicant was violently stabbed by a parent. The applicant received significant inpatient therapy up until the age of 17. The applicant has been homeless for the past 12 years after being discharged, despite never having lived alone. Up until recently, the applicant was unaware of the psychiatric background, which clarifies why the applicant had issues while serving. The applicant acknowledges the actions were wrong, but also feels, had the applicant knew of the issues, the applicant would have sought assistance to avoid further damage to the career. The applicant loves the Army and could have retired. The applicant might have been unique and a source of inspiration for millions of orphans who have faced adversity like the applicant did. Additionally, the applicant contends for extreme and compelling reason, and in the interest of justice, requested relief will assist with relocating the applicant’s children; and because the Army failed to provide the important benefit for transitioning to civilian life, to grant backpay entitlement based on a pay grade according to years of service (20 years) and retirement; and to apply the constructive service. The discharge was also legally invalid because the applicant was never provided the chance to sign the DD Form 214 at block 21. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided as additional evidence. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 May 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 February 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 3 January 2003, the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for two counts of failing to be at the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, four counts of disobeying a lawful order, and disrespecting a noncommissioned officer (NCO). The applicant has been counseled on numerous occasions for being late to formations, substandard appearance, and failing to follow lawful orders. The applicant’s actions demonstrate further rehabilitative attempts would most likely be unsuccessful. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 February 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 February 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 April 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19K10, M1 Abrams Armor Crewman / 10 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Thirteen Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Four Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 14 November 2002; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 15 November 2002; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 19 November 2002; and From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 25 November 2002. Memorandum, dated 3 December 2002, subject: Mental Status Report for the applicant, indicates the applicant having been referred for a mental status evaluation for an administrative separation, has a mental status within the normal limits and there was no evidence of significant treatable psychiatric illness or life-threatening ideation. The applicant was found responsible for the actions, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and met the medical retention standards according to AR 40-501, and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. FG Article 15, dated 3 January 2003, for being absent without authority from the unit on two separate occasions on 14 November 2002 and remaining absent until 15 November 2002, and on 19 November 2002 and remaining absent until 25 November 2002; disobeying an NCO on four separate occasions on 15 November 2002; and being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 15 November 2002. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Report of psychological evaluation, dated 1 October 1996, which reflects an “Axis I” diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, at age 13. Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital Discharge Summary, dated 26 July 1995 that reflects the applicant diagnosis of (Axis I) Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and ADHD (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with listed attachments; DD Form 149 with listed attachments; and DD Form 214. Additional Evidence: Psychological Report (1995); Hospital Discharge Summary; physical examination; Report of Psychological Evaluation; Family Independence Agency letter; Intake Suicide Assessment Checklist; and Classroom Performance Report; Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital Discharge Summary, dated 26 July 1995 that reflects the applicant diagnosis of (Axis I) Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and ADHD; and self-authored letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant’s evidence, Presentence Investigation Report, reflects the applicant worked as a professional fighter through Joe Byrd’s Boxing Academy, which was verified by the Bloomington Police Department in Illinois. 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) 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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-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. 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to service- connected disability. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends preexisting mental illness was aggravated while serving and without receiving treatment at discharge, the disability progressed until it led to legal issues and convictions. The applicant provided a report of psychological evaluation, dated 1 October 1996, which reflects an “Axis I” diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, at age 13. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 3 December 2002, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible for the actions; had the mental capacity to participate in the separation proceedings; and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends that had the applicant known of the behavioral health conditions, the applicant could have requested for help and saved the applicant’s career. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishments. The applicant contends having been homeless upon being discharged from the Army. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant’s documentary evidence reflects that the applicant worked as a professional fighter through a Boxing Academy since 1999. 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. The applicant contends for extreme and compelling reason, and in the interest of justice, the honorable characterization of service will assist with relocating the applicant’s children; and because the Army failed to provide the important benefit for transitioning to civilian life, to grant backpay entitlement based on a pay grade according to years of service (20 years) and retirement; and to apply the constructive service. The issues the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) grants a change in discharge. The issues raise no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge when it was issued. The applicant contends the discharge is legally invalid because the applicant was never provided the chance to sign the DD Form 214 at block 21. Then AR 635-5, currently AR 635-8, governing the preparation of DD Form 214, provides the instructions for completing item 21 (Signature of Soldier Being Separated), when the Soldier is not available (discharged in absentia or physically unable to sign), to enter “SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE TO SIGN.” Once the DD Form 214 has been issued, it will not be reissued unless it is determined the original DD Form 214 cannot be properly corrected by issuance of a DD Form 215 or if the correction would require issuance of more than two DD Forms 215. 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: Adjustment Disorder (AD), Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found there is no evidence of any mitigating behavioral health conditions during the time of the applicant’s military service. The applicant was not diagnosed in service and is not service connected by the VA with any BH conditions. While the applicant did have childhood BH conditions, including AD, there is no evidence in the applicant’s official medical records or provided by the applicant that any of the behavioral conditions were exacerbated by military service. Further, the VA diagnosed the applicant’s Anxiety and MDD in 2019, 16 years post- service but did not service connect either BH condition. Finally, the applicant did not provide civilian medical records stating that the applicant’s AD, Anxiety, or MDD is service connected. Therefore, the applicant’s AD, Anxiety, and MDD did not exist during the applicant’s military service and do not fall under liberal consideration. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to service-connected disability. The Board considered this contention but determined that this requested change does not fall within the purview of the ADRB as the request relates to retirement. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (2) The applicant contends pre-existing mental illness was aggravated while serving and because of being discharged without receiving treatment, the disability progressed until it led to legal issues and convictions. The Board liberally considered this contention, but determined that there is no evidence in applicant’s AMHRR or provided by the applicant to support that the applicant’s pre-existing behavioral health conditions were aggravated by applicant’s military service. Therefore, no upgrade is warranted. (3) The applicant contends that if the applicant knew of the behavioral health conditions, the applicant could have requested for help and saved the career. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof which requires the applicant to provide medical evidence that support the applicant’s contentions that the applicant’s pre-existing behavioral conditions were aggravated by the applicant’s service between 2 April 2002 and 18 February 2003. Based on the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (4) The applicant contends for extreme and compelling reason, and in the interest of justice, requested relief will assist with relocating the applicant’s children; and because the Army failed to provide the important benefit for transitioning to civilian life, to grant backpay entitlement based on a pay grade according to years of service (20 years) and retirement; and to apply the constructive service. The Board considered this contention but determined that this requested change does not fall within the purview of the ADRB as the applicant is requesting retirement and backpay. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (5) The applicant contends the discharge is legally invalid because the applicant was never provided the chance to sign the DD Form 214 at block 21. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s statement but determined that AR 635-8 authorizes the use of the phrase “Soldier is Not Available To Sign” on DD Form 214, Block 21. Further, there is no evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant other than the applicant’s statement to support an impropriety in the applicant’s DD Form 214 processing. Therefore, no discharge upgrade is warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 AD, Anxiety, and MDD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of failing to be at the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, four counts of disobeying a lawful order, and disrespecting a noncommissioned officer. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding aggravation of applicant’s pre-existing behavioral health condition and found insufficient evidence to support this contention. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20210001313 1