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, believing the decision to discharge the applicant was made prematurely and was based on the first Article 15 and incidents which were a year apart, which were completely irrelevant to one another. The military was downsizing, and the applicant assisted with this firsthand as a Military Police Officer. The applicant states this is the reason the applicant believes there were no real attempts to understand how these two events give reason for a chapter. The first Article 15 occurred in November 2013 and charged the applicant with negligence to maintain control of a Mossberg 500. The second Article 15 charged the applicant with Failure to Obey a Lawful Order (x2). This was due to a medical profile assigned to the applicant by the Adult Behavioral Health. The applicant was not to consume alcohol due to the medication prescribed. At the time, the applicant was coping with an alcohol addiction and had self-enrolled into the Army Substance Abuse Program due to a medical recommendation. The applicant was informed the first Article 15, an incident almost a year apart was the basis of the chapter. The applicant believes this is an injustice. The applicant performed their duties well during the two years and seven months as an active-duty military police officer; however, due to personal issues while off duty, increasing stress at work, addiction to alcohol, and combined with the restriction not to drink, the outcome was unavoidable. The applicant is requesting an upgrade for the purpose of using the Montgomery G.I. Bill to attend college and progress their education as a veteran. The applicant did everything to prove they were sober and in good mental health including personal conversations with the Chain of Command, and volunteering to continue ASAP and ABH for an additional three months. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 August 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder providing medical mitigation for the applicant's failure to obey a lawful order and failure to maintain positive control of a weapon offenses and the applicant's length of service outweighing an incident of leaving the scene of an accident associated with the failure to follow an order. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 31 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 31 May 2014, the applicant failed to obey another lawful order given by SPC W. C. to not consume alcohol while on profile; and, On or about 24 November 2013, the applicant failed to maintain positive control of a firearm, an M500 shotgun, while preparing to assume duties as a law enforcement officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 December 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / High School Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31B10, Military Police / 2 years, 11 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: MPR#: 05680-2013-MPC033, 24 November 2013, investigation revealed desk sergeant was notified by the duty officer the applicant had placed a M500 shotgun on the roof of the patrol vehicle while conducting a vehicle inspection. After finishing the inspection, the applicant failed to secure the shotgun and drove out of the military police patrol parking lot, leaving the shotgun on the roof of the patrol vehicle. Once the applicant left the parking lot, the applicant drove to the parking area behind the IPMO. During the transition from one parking lot to another, the applicant's shotgun slid off the top of the vehicle. The shotgun was found, secured, and returned to the IPMO. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, 2 June 2014, reflects the applicant was command referred in the ASAP. CG Article 15, 13 January 2014, on or about 24 November 2013, for being derelict in the performance of duties. The applicant failed to maintain positive control of a firearm. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; and extra duty for 14 days; and an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, 18 July 2014, for on or about 4 June 2014, consuming alcohol after being ordered by SPC W. B. C., the team leader, who was acting in a supervisory position at the time the order was given, to not consume alcohol while enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program and on profile, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. The punishment phase in not available for review. The applicant initialed block 3a of the form indicating the applicant demanded a trial by court-martial. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial, 24 September 2014, reflects the applicant was found guilty of the following charges: Charge I: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The specification: On or about 15 June 2014, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Plea: Guilty; Finding: Guilty. Charge II: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The Specification: On or about 4 June 2014, the applicant consumed alcohol after being ordered by SPC W. C., team leader, not consume alcohol while on profile, such conduct being prejudicial to the good order and disciple in the armed forces. Plea: Not Guilty; Finding: Guilty. The sentence: To be reduced to the grade of Private (E-1). Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for leaving the scene of an accident, being apprehended and under the influence of alcohol; and negligence in the loss of a military issued firearm. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, 10 July 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety, depression, ABH, ASAP, Skyline for nine days ABH until 5 August 2014, Behavioral Evaluation, Alcohol consumption, and Skyline psyh ward. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 15 October 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 screened and assessed by ASAP and diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence in Early Full Remission. The applicant was attending ASAP groups. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and 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) 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 contends good service. The applicant contends the discharge was made prematurely and was based on the first Article 15 and incidents which were a year apart, which were completely irrelevant to one another. The first Article 15 occurred in November 2013 and charged the applicant with negligence to maintain control of a Mossberg 500. The second Article 15 charged the applicant with Failure to Obey a Lawful Order (x2). The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends due to personal issues while off duty, increasing stress at work, addiction to alcohol, and combined with the restriction not to drink, the outcome was unavoidable. The AMHRR shows Report of Medical History, 10 July 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety, depression, ABH, ASAP, Skyline for nine days ABH until 5 August 2014, Behavioral Evaluation, Alcohol consumption, and Skyline psyh ward. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 15 October 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 screened and assessed by ASAP and diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence in Early Full Remission. The applicant was attending ASAP groups. The applicant's medical history and the MSE were considered by the separation authority. 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. 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: Mood disorder, Depressive Disorder not otherwise specified, Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder on active duty, which can subsume additional diagnoses of Depressive Disorder not otherwise specified and his service-connected diagnosis of Mood Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the presence of major depression mitigates some of the misconduct associated with discharge. The applicant's depression predates the failure to maintain positive control of a firearm; as depression is characterized by distractibility and lack of focus and concentration there is a nexus between the two. Major Depression is also associated with the misuse of substances to self-medicate symptoms, which mitigates failure to obey a lawful order not to use alcohol. However, the use of alcohol in violation of an order on 31 May 2014 appears to have resulted in driving while intoxicated with damage to property and leaving the scene of an accident. Although depression would mitigate the simple act of driving while impaired due to self- medication of depressive symptoms, there is no direct nexus (and therefore no mitigation) between depression and the aggravating circumstances of destruction of property and leaving the scene of an accident. (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 mood disorder and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated destruction of property and leaving the scene of an accident offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends due to personal issues while off duty, increasing stress at work, addiction to alcohol, and combined with the restriction not to drink, the outcome was unavoidable. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's mood disorder and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated destruction of property and leaving the scene of an accident offenses. However, the Board did find that there was medical mitigation for the applicant's offenses of failure to obey a lawful order and failure to maintain positive control of a weapon offenses. This mitigation, combined with the applicant's length of service, led the Board to determine that a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the applicant's nearly three years of service when determining to upgrade the applicant's discharge. (3) The applicant contends the discharge was made prematurely and was based on the two Article 15s which were a year apart and completely irrelevant to one another. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's misconduct and found that the remainder of the applicant's service record, combined with the partial medical mitigation discussed above in 9b(1), merited a discharge upgrade. (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 the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder providing medical mitigation for the applicant's failure to obey a lawful order and failure to maintain positive control of a weapon offenses. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant's length of service outweighed the medically unmitigated misconduct - leaving the scene of an accident - associated with disobeying an order. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because of the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder provided medical mitigation for some of the applicant's misconduct and the applicant's length of service outweighed the remainder of misconduct. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20210001626 1