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 discharge should have been a medical discharge. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the applicant 100 percent service- connected disabled. The applicant used alcohol because the applicant was not being treated for the applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant was mentally unstable from 2010 to 2011. After the applicant received treatment, the applicant did not get in any trouble. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 November 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: 8 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant committed acts of adultery, The applicant engaged in inappropriate relationships with Soldiers of different ranks, The applicant made false official statements, and The applicant provided alcohol to underage Soldiers. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 February 2010 / 4 years, 6 months / Orders R-01- 080143A01, reflect the applicant’s REFRAD date as 15 August 2016. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / Master’s Degree / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y3P, Unit Supply Specialist / 11 years, 9 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 July 2003 – 7 September 2007 / HD USARCG, 8 September 2007 – 8 December 2009 / NA USAR, 9 December 2009 – 15 February 2010 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (29 June 2004 – 9 October 2004); Iraq (4 April 2005 – 15 July 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM, JMUA, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 16 February 2010 – 15 February 2011 / Fully Capable 16 February 2011 – 15 February 2012 / Marginal 16 February 2012 – 15 February 2013 / Fully Capable 16 February 2013 – 11 August 2013 / Fully Capable 12 August 2013 – 11 August 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: State of New York, County of New York, Summons with Notice, 19 December 2012, reflecting the applicant’s spouse filed for divorce and the applicant was summoned to appear in court. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, 9 March 2013, reflects during informal AR 15-6 Investigation, investigating officer determined: The applicant committed adultery, drank alcohol, and provided alcohol to underage Soldiers on numerous occasions; The applicant violated common informal office courtesies and information security standards regarding personally identifiable information (PII) when the applicant inappropriately retained another noncommissioned officer’s (NCO’s) Evaluation Report and published it in the public domain without the NCO’s permission; The applicant on occasion misused the applicant’s rank, position, and role in the unit lodging process for private gain or benefit by securing a room or suite in the hotel where the applicant committed various acts of personal misconduct during various battle assembly weekends. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement indicating the applicant was separated from the spouse and did not condone adultery. The applicant did not intend to violate PII and did not recognize the applicant should have assured all the PII was deleted properly. The applicant denies the other allegations and states the allegations regarding underage drinking came after the applicant filed a congressional inquiry. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 3 December 2013, reflecting the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, but the applicant did not meet medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD, with a positive result, and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with a negative result. The applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD; major depressive disorder (MDD). Physical Profile (permanent), 19 May 2014, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Depression, PTSD, Neck pain, Back pain, and Pseudofolliculitis barbae. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, 19 May 2014, reflecting a medical evaluation board (MEB) was conducted and determined the applicant did not meet the medical retention standards for PTSD and depression and was referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB). The applicant agreed with the board’s findings and recommendation. The VA letter, 26 March 2014, reflecting the applicant initiated services at the VA Outpatient Clinic on 20 May 2013. The applicant was hospitalized on 21 May 2013 at an inpatient mental health facility and the attending physician believed the applicant needed to be transferred as soon as possible to a military or VA Hospital experienced in assisting veterans / active duty personnel with PTSD / homicidal ideation. The applicant returned to the clinic after being discharged from the Army psychiatric hospital at Fort Hood on 4 June 2013. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), and alcohol abuse. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), letter, undated, reflecting the VA increased the applicant’s rating of 30 percent service-connected disability for PTSD with major depressive disorder (MDD), effective 11 June 2013, to 100 percent. (2) AMHRR Listed: Memorandum, subject: Review, Medical Evaluation Board in Context of Administrative Separation Board [Applicant], 8 August 2014, at the request of the USACAPOC (A) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), the command surgeon reviewed the medical evaluation board documents for the applicant’s mental health conditions. The surgeon found the medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct which led to the recommendation for separation for misconduct. The applicant’s circumstance of the applicant’s case did not warrant disability processing instead of administrative separation for misconduct. The applicant had the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Physical Profile; Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; four VA letters; Rated Disabilities document; electronic mail messages; and Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division letter. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, (Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 being rated 100 percent service-connected disabled by the VA for PTSD and the condition affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents reflecting in-service PTSD with MDD, and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service connected disabled for the condition. The applicant provided a Report of Mental Status Evaluation reflecting the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 3 December 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong but did not meet medical retention requirements. The applicant was pending an MEB for PTSD and depression. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the command surgeon reviewed the MEB and found the applicant’s medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct which led to the recommendation for separation. The record is void of the separation authority’s action on the recommendation for separation. The applicant contends getting into trouble because the applicant was not being treated for PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was underway at the time of the separation proceedings. Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and is subsequently processed for an involuntary administrative separation or referred to a court-martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The PEB case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical process is stopped and the board report is filed in the member’s medical 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 diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD, TBI, Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder. The VA has also service connected the PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD, TBI, Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder. The VA has also service connected the PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. However, there is no natural sequela between any of the applicant’s BH conditions (i.e., PTSD, TBI, MDD, Mood Disorder NOS, Bipolar Disorder) and the misconduct that led to the separation, to include: adultery, inappropriate relationships, making false official statements, or providing alcohol to underage Soldiers. None of the conditions interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated offenses of: adultery, inappropriate relationships, making false official statements, or providing alcohol to underage Soldiers. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being rated 100 percent service-connected disabled by the VA for PTSD and the condition affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated offenses of: adultery, inappropriate relationships, making false official statements, or providing alcohol to underage Soldiers. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends getting into trouble because the applicant was not being treated for PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support that the applicant sought or was denied behavioral health treatment. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient mitigating factors to show that the Misconduct (Serious Offense) narrative reason for separation was not proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that the applicant’s request for a change to a medical discharge does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) using a DD Form 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf or from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (5) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was underway at the time of the separation proceedings. The Board considered this contention but found that the applicant’s PEB was suspended in accordance with Army Regulation as the applicant was pending administrative discharge for misconduct. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration to the evidentiary record, the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Major Depressive Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Bipolar Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of: adultery, inappropriate relationships, making false official statements, or providing alcohol to underage Soldiers. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding a change to the narrative reason for separation and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. (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 AR20210001459 1