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: 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 was a disciplined Soldier who had integrity, and respect for all fellow Soldiers. While in Afghanistan, the applicant saw many traumatizing things, barely rested, and it was difficult to adapt to the surroundings. Besides being under daily mortar attacks, the applicant had to cope with improvised explosive devises (IED), suicide bomber and tons of vehicle borne IEDs (VBIEDs). The applicant saw battle buddies blown up from IED's multiple times and VBIEDs destroying the front entrance of Kandahar Camp, injuring the Soldiers on tower guard and at the security check point. It was tough and Soldiers suffered minor injuries; however, all the battle buddies made it home safely. The applicant was severely on edge and under attack since being back home. The applicant could not sleep which led to missing physical training formation. The applicant fought with the spouse constantly which resulted in the spouse leaving and taking the child. The applicant's insomnia became worse, and the applicant started drinking to cope with the marital, emotional, mental and nightmare problems. After missing physical training formation twice, the company started the chapter process. The applicant states it was discovered they suffer with PTSD and would like to use the Post 9/11 GI Bill, to begin moving on with their life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 09 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is improper based on the applicant's length, quality and combat services, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), PTSD and MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635- 200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 22 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 25 May and 2 July 2012, the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty, for which the applicant received an Article 15. On or about 6 September and 7 September 2012, the applicant failed to be at the appointed place of duty. On or about 21 August and 22 August 2012, the applicant disobeyed an order by SFC P., which it was the applicant's duty to obey. On or about 22 August 2012, the applicant was disrespectful in deportment towards SFC P., for which offenses the applicant received an Article 15. On or about 27 September, 3 October, and 15 October 2012, the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty. On or about 27 September 2012, the applicant disobeyed an order by SFC D., which it was the applicant's duty to obey; for which offenses the applicant received an Article 15. On or about 21 November, 23 November, 24, November and 25 November 2012, the applicant failed to be at the appointed place of duty. On or about 23 November and 24 November 2012, with intent to deceive, made false official statements; and, On or about 24 November 2012, the applicant disobeyed a direct order by SSG R. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 December 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 September 2009 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 March 2011 - 12 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, 17 August 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 22 May 2012 and 2 July 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, suspended; forfeiture of $435 pay, suspended; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, 11 September 2012, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment of reduction to E-3 imposed on 17 August 2012, was vacated for: Disobeying a lawful order from SFC P. on or about 21 August 2012. CG Article 15, 2 October 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 6 and 7 September 2012; disobeying a lawful order from SFC P. on or about 21 and 22 August 2012; and being disrespectful in deportment toward SFC P. on or about 22 August 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $389 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 4 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40- 501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. FG Article 15, 2 November 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 27 September, and 3 and 15 October 2012; and failing to obey a lawful order issued by SFC D. on or about 27 September 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $745 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Progress Notes, 9 April 2015, reflect the applicant was admitted back into the domiciliary to attend the PTSD program on 6 March. The applicant was seen by prescriber on 25 March, medications were increased. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Assessment, 28 September 2012, the health care provider noted in the comments section: Insomnia. Report of Medical Examination, 10 October 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Insomnia. Report of Medical History, 10 October 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Trouble falling asleep since redeployment last eight months. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; VA Progress Notes; DD Form 214. 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 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's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant provided Progress Notes, 9 April 2015, which reflects the applicant was admitted back into the domiciliary to attend the PTSD program on 6 March. The applicant was seen by the prescriber on 25 March, and medications were increased. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 4 October 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. A Report of Medical Assessment, 28 September 2012, reflects the health care provider noted in the comments section: Insomnia. A Report of Medical Examination, 10 October 2012 reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Insomnia. A Report of Medical History, 10 October 2012, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Trouble falling asleep since redeployment last eight months. The MSE and allied medical assessment, examination and history were considered by the separation authority. 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. 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: PTSD, MST, MDD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is service connected by the VA for PTSD, MST, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Service connection establishes that the applicant's conditions existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is service connected by the VA for PTSD, MST, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Given the nexus between PTSD, MST, MDD, and avoidance, the applicant's BH conditions mitigate the FTRs. There is also a nexus between PTSD, MST, and difficulty with authority, so disrespect and disobeying orders are mitigated. There is no natural sequela between PTSD, MST, or MDD and making a false official statement, so this misconduct is not mitigated by any of the applicant's BH conditions. However, the remaining misconduct of making a false official statement is minor and outweighed by the applicant's experience of MST. The Board's Medical Advisor recommends an upgrade to HD with Secretarial Authority. The RE Code should remain a 3 due to the applicant's service connection for BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's is service connected by the VA for PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and MST experience outweighed the applicant's pattern of misconduct basis for separation - disrespect to an NCO, disobeying a direct order, failure to be at appointed place of duty. However, making a false official statement is not mitigated by any of the applicant's BH conditions. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and MST along with the totality of the applicant's service record outweighed the pattern of misconduct - disrespect to an NCO, disobeying a direct order, failure to be at appointed place of duty. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant's three years of service, including one combat tour to Afghanistan and the numerous awards received by the applicant but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as detailed in paragraphs 9a (3-4) and 9b (1). (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's family issues do not mitigate the applicant's pattern of misconduct as outlined above in paragraphs 9a (3-4) and 9b (1) because the Army affords Soldiers many avenues to assist Soldiers, including seeking separation for hardship. (4) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length, quality, combat service and medical conditions mitigated the basis for applicant's separation as outlined above in paragraphs 9a (3-4) and 9b (1). (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare, or VA loans, 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is improper based on the applicant's length, quality and combat services, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), PTSD and MST mitigating the applicant's misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635- 200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and MST experience outweigh the applicant misconduct - disrespect to an NCO, disobeying a direct order, failure to be at appointed place of duty. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate . (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, because the applicant's mitigating condition is service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210001436 1