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, serving honorably in the Army for over 11 years which included five deployments. The applicant was in a volatile marriage and tried to end the marriage with a PCS move. In retaliation, the spouse brought an opposite sex person into the home and the applicant reacted poorly. The applicant does not believe their outstanding career should be wasted due to one bad decision. The applicant was put on anti-depression medication when they should have been put on anxiety medication for anxiety issues due to PTSD. The applicant never had a pattern of misconduct and was never given the chance to explain their part of the story nor has the applicant been given the chance to bounce back from a one-time bad decision. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 September 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 May 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 21 March 2015 in Cameron, North Carolina, the applicant assaulted A. G., the spouse, by striking A. G. in the face with a closed fist; and, On or about 19 June 2014 in Cameron, North Carolina, the applicant assaulted A. G., the spouse, by unlawfully striking A. G. in the face with a closed fist. (3) Recommended Characterization: The Company Commander recommended Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and the Battalion and Brigade Commander recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 2 June 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 July 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The AMHRR does not contain any evidence of a board proceeding; however, the separation authority indicated they had reviewed the administrative separation board proceedings. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 November 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 2 years college / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 74D30, Chemical Operations Specialist / 11 years, 10 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 September 2003 – 14 September 2007 / HD RA, 15 September 2007 – 14 November 2010 / HD (The DD Form 4 for this period is void from the AMHRR) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 July 2004 – 10 October 2004; 3 January 2006 – 7 April 2006) (The DD Form 214 reflects service was in Iraq during 1 July 2004 – 10 October 2004; however, the ERB reflects the service was in Afghanistan); Iraq (7 April 2005 – 14 July 2005; 7 July 2007 – 10 October 2007; 31 March 2008 – 2 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM-2, JSAM, AAM-3, JMUA, ASUA, AGCM- 2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2010 – 9 January 2014 / Among The Best 10 January 2014 – 9 January 2015 / Among The Best 10 January 2015 – 18 May 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Harnett County Sheriff’s Incident/Investigation Report, 19 June 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with assault, communicating threats, interfering with emergency communication, and assault inflicting serious injury in a minor’s presence. Military Protective Order, 26 June 2014, reflects the applicant’s spouse was pressing charges of domestic violence in relation to an event which occurred on 19 June 2014. Harnett County Sheriffs Incident/Investigation Report, 7 March 2015, reflect the applicant was charged with Criminal Damage to Property (vandalism). Harnett County Sheriffs Arrest Report, 21 March 2015, reflects the applicant was arrested for assault. FG Article 15, 18 May 2015, for on or about 21 March 2015 and 19 June 2014, unlawfully strike A. G. in the face with a closed fist. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,553 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Progress Notes, 25 September 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, ICD Code: 309.81/F43.10 and Alcohol use Disorder, ICD Code: 303.00/F10.20. VA Rating Decision Letter, 24 November 2015, reflects the applicant was granted 10 percent for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 70 percent for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol use disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DA photo; DD Form 214; Enlisted Record Brief; seven certificates; six DA Forms 2166-8; VA benefit letter; VA 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 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 good service, including five combat tours. 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 the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends being put on anti-depression medication when they should have been put on anxiety medication due to PTSD. The applicant provided Progress Notes, 25 September 2015, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, ICD Code: 309.81/F43.10 and Alcohol use Disorder, ICD Code: 303.00/F10.20. A VA Rating Decision letter, 24 November 2015, reflects the applicant was granted 10 percent for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with alcohol use disorder. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends never having a pattern of misconduct and never being given the chance to explain their part of the story or a chance to bounce back from a one-time bad decision. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD was related to combat exposure in Iraq, and mTBI associated with 2 concussive episodes related to parachute jumps in 2004 and 2010. (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 has potentially mitigating diagnoses of PTSD and TBI and basis the basis for separation is two instances of assault against the applicant’s spouse. The applicant’s misconduct of assault is not natural sequela of PTSD and therefore not mitigated by the disorder. Also, although the applicant has a potentially mitigating diagnosis of TBI, there is no evidence the TBI was of such severity as to have noteworthy impact on behavior, judgment, or cognition, and therefore does not mitigate the applicant's misconduct. There is no evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition that rendered the applicant unable 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being put on anti-depression medication when the applicant should have been put on anxiety medication due to PTSD instead. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support that the applicant’s diagnosis and medication was in error. Further, the Board liberally considered the applicant’s behavioral health but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offenses. (2) The applicant contends good service, including five combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s 11 years of service but determined that the applicant’s record does not outweigh the applicant’s domestic violence offenses. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s “volatile” marriage but determined that it does not mitigate the applicant’s domestic violence offenses as the Army affords many avenues to Soldiers including seeking separation for hardship. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but determined that the basis of separation was two domestic violence incidents over a period of nine months. Therefore, the Board found that the misconduct was not an isolated incident and a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (5) The applicant contends never having a pattern of misconduct and never being given the chance to explain their part of the story or a chance to bounce back from a one-time bad decision. The Board considered this contention but found that the applicant’s domestic violence offense does constitute misconduct by which a single incident my serve as the basis for separation and characterization of service in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5. 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 voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of assault, communicating threats, interfering with emergency communication, and assault inflicting serious injury in a minor presence. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding good service and the misconduct being an isolated incident 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 discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001617 1