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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believing the discharge should be upgraded because the applicant was told they would receive and honorable discharge by the Commander. The reason the general discharge was given was due to the applicant receiving an Article 15 while deployed and not for the separation the applicant initially received. The applicant has a disability they were told they did not have; however, was diagnosed after being separated. The applicant believes they deserve a better discharge and should not have been judged for an Article 15 the applicant received months before being separated. The applicant stayed out of trouble from there on and it had nothing to do with the involvement of the separation. The applicant wants an upgrade for a better job opportunity and to attend school to improve their career. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 16 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Alcohol Abuse by T. F, Psy.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Behavioral Health, thus limiting the effectiveness and abilities as a uniformed Service Member; and On 28 September 2013, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 2.3.2 and paragraph 2.4, Air Expeditionary Wing Instruction 34-219, 20 August 2013, by wrongfully possessing alcohol not purchased with a CAC card, and not distributed by 379 EFSS, in a prohibited location. (3) Recommended Characterization: The Company Commander recommended an honorable discharge; however, the Battalion Commander recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 March 2011 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / Bachelor Degree / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Qatar (4 December 2012 – 23 November 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, 8 November 2013, on or about 28 September 2013, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 2.3.2 and paragraph 2.4 Air Expeditionary Wing instruction 34-219, 20 August 2013, by wrongfully possessing alcohol not purchased with a Common Access Card, wrongfully possessing alcohol not distributed by 379 EFSS, and wrongfully possessing alcohol in a prohibited location. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $396 pay per month for one month; and extra duty for 14 days Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for chapter 5-17 (Other Mental) Recommendation and notification of separation FLAG and Initiation of chapter 5-17 Section 9 Separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Assessment, 19 March 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Pt is currently under BH evaluation, Pt receiving T from BH, and Insomnia currently receiving T. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 20 March 2014, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder w/Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Alcohol Abuse. It was noted: SM appears to meet criteria for administrative separation IAW AR 635-200 Chapter 5-17. SM’s condition does not appear to warrant disposition through medical channels (i.e. MEB), does appear to have chronic difficulties with mood and functioning which limits effectiveness and abilities as a uniformed servicemember. SM is in agreement with these findings and is agreeable to expeditious administrative separation recommended by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Online application; partial separation packet; DD Form 214; three third-party letters; class schedule. 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 2-2c, states the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation. (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) 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. (4) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (6) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-14 (previously Chapter 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. 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 discharge should be upgraded because the applicant was told they would receive an honorable discharge by the Commander. The applicant received the general (under honorable conditions) due to receiving an Article 15 while deployed and not for the separation. The separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation as stated in Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2-2c. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends having a disability which they were told they did not have while on active duty but was diagnosed after separation. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct while serving in the Army. 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 and Depression/Major Depressive 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 an Adjustment Disorder and Depression. The VA has also service connected the applicant for Major Depressive Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s Chapter 5- 17 discharge for an Adjustment Disorder is appropriate. The applicant was also diagnosed in service with Depression, and the VA has service connected the applicant for Major Depressive Disorder. However, the applicant was evaluated at the time of separation and none of the applicant’s BH conditions were found to warrant an MEB. The applicant’s service connection by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder does not negate the appropriateness of the discharge given that the VA operates under a different set of laws and regulations. The wrongful possession of alcohol is mitigated by the applicant’s Depression given the nexus with self- medicating with substances. However, the applicant was previously upgraded to an HD suggesting that the proper mitigation has already been applied. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because the applicant was told they would receive an honorable discharge by the Commander. The applicant received the general (under honorable conditions) due to receiving an Article 15 while deployed and not for the separation. The Board considered this contention but found that the applicant was previously upgraded by an ADRB hearing and that no further upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends having a disability which they were told they did not have while on active duty but was diagnosed after separation. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that proper medical mitigation has already been applied. The applicant’s characterization of service was upgraded to Honorable by the ADRB in a previous board. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (4) 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 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 characterization of Honorable; therefore, is no further characterization 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 AR20210001556 1