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 honorable. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request for an upgrade is based on the applicant being a great Soldier who was diagnosed with TBI, PTSD, back injury, and knee injury, and no longer performing well after the deployment. Because of the disability, the applicant is unable to find work. The applicant is unable to attend college because of being ineligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. An upgrade would provide a second chance to restore their life and provide for the family but is unable to with the conditions. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 October 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 12 January 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 December 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 7 January and 16 October 2011, on divers occasions, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Between 27 January and 18 October 2011, on divers occasions, the applicant disobeyed lawful orders. On 28 March 2011, the applicant violated a lawful general regulation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 December 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 December 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 April 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / High School Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A1P, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (8 December 2009 – 3 February 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, ASR / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects an overseas service, however, the award, OSR, is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Four Developmental Counseling Forms for failing to sign out on leave and failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Summarized Article 15, 15 November 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 13 September and 15 and 16 October 2010 and failing to obey the Command Leave and Passes Policy on 18 October 2010. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, 13 June 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 7 and 12 January, and 25 March 2011; disobeying an NCO on 27 January and 29 March 2011 and failing to obey a lawful general regulation on 28 March 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 29 July 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for an administrative separation under Chapter 13 from a Behavioral Health perspective. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. There was no diagnosis. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, 8 November 2011, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol. After being stopped for drifting back and forth in traffic and an odor of alcohol detected on the breath, the applicant was administered a breath test which resulted in a finding of .100 grams. Personnel Action form reflect the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 9 January 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 days (AWOL, 9 January 2012 – 12 January 2012) / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Progress Notes (C & P Examination Note), 22 February 2013 to 17 October 2017, reflect diagnoses of and treatment for PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, and mild neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, 28 August 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant has been to behavioral health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA letter; VA Form 10-5345a; Initial Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – DSM V; and Progress Notes. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 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 being diagnosed with TBI and PTSD. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses of TBI and PTSD, and prescribed medication. The applicant’s AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 29 July 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends being a great Soldier. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends because of the disability, the applicant is unable to find employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends being ineligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill, because of the current discharge. Eligibility for veterans’ 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, Anxiety, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, TBI, and Cannabis Use Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant 100 percent service connected for PTSD related to combat. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance and difficulty with authority, PTSD mitigates misconduct characterized by FTR and minor misconduct related to disobeying lawful orders. As it relates to the decision to transport applicant’s government issued weapon in the POV, this misconduct would not be mitigated by the applicant diagnoses of PTSD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, or TBI, as the conditions did not impair applicant’s ability to differentiate between right and wrong and adhere to 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, Anxiety, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, TBI, and Cannabis Use Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – violation of a lawful general regulation – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with TBI and PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI, however the applicant currently has an Honorable characterization of service and the Board voted further upgrade is not warranted as the applicant’s remaining unmitigated misconduct does not support a change to the narrative reason for discharge or RE code. (2) The applicant contends being a great Soldier. The Board considered this contention; however, the current characterization of service is honorable and there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason, and it was determined that PTSD mitigated some of the misconduct, but did not fully excuse the applicant’s basis of separation. The applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. (3) The applicant contends because of the disability, the applicant is unable to find employment. The Board considered this contention, but it does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (4) The applicant contends being ineligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill, because of the current discharge. 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 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 contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a characterization of Honorable. Therefore, no further relief is available. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code 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 AR20210001506 1