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, going through a divorce during the last year of service, and the spouse took their three and six-year-old children out of state, which caused the applicant with stress and anxiety. At the same time, the applicant was having trouble sleeping due to insomnia, which led to oversleeping and being late to work. When the command changed, the new NCOs did not understand the applicant's personal situation, nor were they interested in what was affecting the applicant's performance at work. The applicant contends being a good Soldier. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's behavioral health conditions mitigating much of the applicant's misconduct. The applicant's length of service, to include combat service, then outweighed the applicant's unmitigated conduct of allowing an unlicensed driver to drive the applicant's vehicle. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 29 February 2012, the applicant was arrested and placed in the Harris County Jail for attempting to purchase Roxicodone and allowing an unlicensed driver to drive vehicle. Additionally, the applicant failed to be at appointed place of duty on several occasions: 15 August 2012, 0530 VMI Motor pool; 22 September 2012, 0830 staff duty desk and 25 September and 2 October 2012, 1400, ASAP. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 April 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 October 2008 / 6 years / According to the Commander's Report, 19 March 2013. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / GED / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 6 years, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 March 2007 - 26 October 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (30 May 2009 - 25 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, 8 February 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on two occasions and disobeyed a lawful order between 17 December 2012 to 10 January 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $470 and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (suspended) A Civilian Police Report, 1 March 2012, reflects the applicant was charged with a criminal attempt to purchase Roxicodone and permitting an unlicensed person to drive. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, 7 November 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Severe Anxiety, and PTSD. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 16 November 2012, 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 positive results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD, mild to moderate and Alcohol Abuse. Currently enrolled in ASAP. The applicant's Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score indicates a potential problem with alcohol. Report of Medical Examination, 30 January 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Significant behavior health history of depression, PTSD, and anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the applicant. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, Pattern of Misconduct. 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 having trouble sleeping due to insomnia. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 16 November 2012, reflecting a diagnosis with: PTSD, mild to moderate and Alcohol Abuse. Also, a Report of Medical History, 7 November 2012 and Examination, 30 January 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Severe Anxiety, Depression and PTSD. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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 new NCOs did not understand the applicant's personal situation, nor were they interested in what was affecting the applicant's performance at work. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression (under multiple diagnoses to include Dysthymic Disorder and Major Depression), Bipolar Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and possible Traumatic Brain Injury. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence to support the potentially mitigating conditions Generalized Anxiety Disorder (which would subsume diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder NOS and Intermittent Explosive Disorder, although the latter is not typically considered for mitigation), Depression (subsuming multiple diagnoses), and PTSD at the time of service. Although possible TBI is noted in records, there is no compelling evidence to support an injury that would impact judgment, behavior, or mood to a degree to be considered a potentially mitigating condition. Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder does not appear to be applicable to active service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant's psychiatric conditions mitigate some of the misconduct associated with the discharge. Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and PTSD can all be associated with self-medication of distress through use of illicit substances providing partial mitigation for applicant's attempt to purchase an opiate medication for personal use. PTSD and Generalized Anxiety Disorder are associated with sleep concerns and avoidance behaviors especially those related to stressful, anxiety-provoking situations; Depression is associated with poor sleep, low motivation, and reduced energy. As such, these conditions mitigate the applicant's FTRs. None of these conditions provide any mitigation for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive a vehicle as there is no nexus between the conditions and this offense. (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 behavioral health conditions outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offense of allowing an unlicensed driver to drive the applicant's vehicle. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having trouble sleeping due to insomnia. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's behavioral health conditions outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offense of allowing an unlicensed driver to drive the applicant's vehicle. The applicant's other offenses were mitigated as discussed in 9a(3) above. However, the Board did determine that the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offense. Therefore, a characterization upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention but found that the applicant's situation with wanting to move with two children did not warrant further upgrade from what was already decided in 9b(1) above. (3) The applicant contends the new NCOs did not understand the applicant's personal situation, nor were they interested in what was affecting the applicant's performance at work. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant's AMHRR or applicant provided evidence to support this contention and warrant further upgrade. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's service record and credited the applicant's service in its decision to upgrade the characterization to Honorable. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's behavioral health conditions mitigating much of the applicant's misconduct. The applicant's length of service, to include combat service, then outweighed the applicant's unmitigated conduct of allowing an unlicensed driver to drive the applicant's vehicle. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's behavioral health conditions mitigated the applicant's drug abuse misconduct and FTRs. The applicant's length of service and combat service were found to outweigh the applicant's remaining unmedically mitigated offense. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change 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 AR20210001644 1