1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 6 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, being deployed to Kosovo when all the mental health symptoms started and impacted the applicant’s marriage and which ended in a divorce. On the return from deployment, the mental health symptoms increased. The applicant began to cope with the mental health conditions by using drugs with other Soldiers. The applicant spoke with the 1SG at the time and informed them about the personal challenges and mental health conditions and never received any assistance or help. The applicant was told once they arrived at the battalion, they would help the applicant with the drug use and mental health issues. Once the applicant arrived at the battalion, the applicant did not receive any help or treatment, instead, the applicant was put to work on different fire guard schedules. After not receiving any help, the applicant went AWOL. The applicant received two article 15’s, was reduced from E-5 to E-1 at which point, the applicant flew to Puerto Rico due to mental health conditions which started during the applicant’s military service. Since the applicant could not report to work, the applicant was chaptered out, receiving no help from the chain of command. The applicant believes they were punished and discriminated as a Hispanic from Puerto Rico and treated differently compared to American Soldiers. The applicant is currently being treated at VACHS, San Juan Puerto Rico and is a participant in the homeless program due to a history of chronic homelessness since being discharged from the military. The applicant proudly served three years without any disciplinary actions or article 15’s. The applicant desires to be useful in society again, start to work, leave the streets and recover from the mental health conditions; however, an upgrade is needed to be fully eligible for veteran benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 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: Conviction By Civil Court / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-5, Sec II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (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 November 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13B2P, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 3 months, 9 days (The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not list “Cannon Crewmember,” the enlistment contract reflects the MOS as 13F, Fire Support Specialist) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 November 1999 – 15 November 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Kosovo / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces Form, 20 June 2003, reflects the applicant was absent on or about 24 February 2003 and remained continuously so absent until 26 March 2003. Report of Return of Absentee, 27 August 2004, reflects the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 27 August 2004 and returned to military control. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 years, 3 months, 2 days (NIF, 24 February 2003 – 26 May 2005) j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A letter from Caribbean VAMC, 25 November 2015, which reflects the applicant had been under follow up since 12 May 2008 at San Juan VMC, patient has presented active symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among other conditions, at present patient presents the following trauma related symptoms: recurrent/intrusive distressing recollections of the event, recurrent distressing dreams of the event, acting/feelings as if the traumatic event is recurring with a sense of reliving the experience, flashback episodes, intense psychological distress at exposure to cues symbolizing an aspect of the traumatic event, avoidance, and physiologic reactivity on exposure to cues which resemble an aspect of the traumatic event. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; VA letter; 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 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) Section II, Paragraph 14-5, prescribes conditions which subject a Soldier to discharge and reduction in grade. A Soldier may be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if one of the following conditions is present. This includes similar adjudication in juvenile proceedings: 1) A punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM 2002, as amended; 2) The sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. Adjudication in juvenile proceedings includes adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, wayward minor, or youthful offender; Initiation of separation action is not mandatory. Although the conditions established in a (1) or (2), above, are present, the immediate commander must also consider whether the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. If the immediate commander initiates separation action, the case will be processed through the chain of command to the separation authority for appropriate action. A Soldier convicted by a civil court or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court will be reduced or considered for reduction. 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 “JKB” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, section II, misconduct (civil conviction). 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-5, SEC II, by reason of Conviction by Civil Court, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. The applicant contends good service. 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 using drugs with other Soldiers to cope with PTSD symptoms after returning from Kosovo. The applicant provided a letter from Caribbean VAMC, 25 November 2015, which reflects the applicant had been under follow up since 12 May 2008 at San Juan VMC, patient has presented active symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among other conditions, at present patient presents the following trauma related symptoms: recurrent/intrusive distressing recollections of the event, recurrent distressing dreams of the event, acting/feelings as if the traumatic event is recurring with a sense of reliving the experience, flashback episodes, intense psychological distress at exposure to cues symbolizing an aspect of the traumatic event, avoidance, and physiologic reactivity on exposure to cues which resemble an aspect of the traumatic event. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends asking for help from the 1SG and being told once the applicant arrived at the battalion, they would receive help; however, no treatment or help was provided. After not receiving any help, the applicant went AWOL. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends being punished and discriminated as a Hispanic and treated differently compared to American Soldiers. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. 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 of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits 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: None. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant asserts having PTSD, Depression, and Anxiety at the time of military service. (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 asserted PTSD, Depression, and Anxiety do not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s offenses. There is insufficient medical evidence to support that any of these conditions existed during military service or were incurred as a result of military service. There is no evidence of any BH conditions being diagnosed in service, and the VA has not service-connected any BH conditions. A VA psychiatrist wrote a letter documenting a PTSD diagnosis, but did not discuss the trauma leading to the diagnosis. The applicant is not service-connected for PTSD and there is no mention of a service-related trauma in the medical record. The applicant was diagnosed post-service with a Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder, which is a depressive disorder secondary to substance abuse. There is no medical evidence to support that applicant’s asserted Depression existed at the time of military service and furthermore, a Depression that is secondary to a primary substance abuse condition is not mitigating. Finally, there is no medical evidence to support applicant’s asserted Anxiety. In addition to there being a lack of evidence to support that any of applicant’s asserted conditions existed during or were caused by military service, the civilian offense leading to the separation is not contained in the file. (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, Depression, or Anxiety outweighed the applicant’s civilian conviction basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends using drugs with other Soldiers to cope with PTSD symptoms after returning from Kosovo. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that while the applicant’s asserted PTSD, Depression, or Anxiety could outweigh the applicant’s civilian conviction basis of separation, the Board could not determine whether the applicant’s asserted PTSD, Depression, or Anxiety actually outweighs the applicant’s civilian conviction without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without additional medical evidence, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s asserted PTSD outweighs the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted at this time. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention but determined that the available evidence is insufficient to warrant upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s separation from applicant’s spouse and child does not mitigate the applicant’s civilian conviction basis of separation as the Army affords many avenues to Soldiers including seeking separation for hardship. (4) The applicant contends asking for help from the 1SG and being told once the applicant arrived at the battalion, they would receive help; however, no treatment or help was provided. After not receiving any help, the applicant went AWOL. The Board considered this contention but found that the applicant was not separated for going AWOL, the applicant was separated for a civilian conviction. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (5) The applicant contends being punished and discriminated as a Hispanic and treated differently compared to American Soldiers. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. (6) The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but found the available evidence was insufficient to outweigh the applicant’s civilian conviction basis of separation. (7) 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. (8) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, Depression, and Anxiety did not outweigh the medically unmitigated civilian conviction basis of separation. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding family difficulties, the treatment from the unit, and good service 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 AR20210001624 1