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, the discharge requires corrections to either an honorable or a medical and honorable discharge. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, major depression, and suicidal thoughts. No one bothered to examine the medical records or even considered the latter incident as recent activities. The command merely desired to separate the applicant immediately because of family hardships. The applicant was on the way to the rank of sergeant. Until the incident, the leaders were preparing the applicant to go before the promotion board. The applicant has had recurring nightmares about the incident on post which occurred at the hands of seven military Soldiers. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 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: 26 October 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 September 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Failing to be at the appointed place of duty on: 26 July and 16 August 2005, 1300 work call; and 5 and 8 August, 22 and 28 November, and 19 December 2005, 0630 accountability formation. On 9 September 2005, leaving the place of duty without authority. Failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on: 7 and 9 February 2006, 0530 accountability formation; and 13 and 21 February, and 14 September 2006, 0630 accountability formation. On 19 May 2006, being disrespectful in language towards SGT D. M. On 21 and 23 May 2006, failing to stay awake during guard duty. On 15 July 2006, unlawfully striking the spouse in the face with a closed fist. On 14 September 2006, disobeying CSM A. P., when ordered to maintain the sideburns within the standards of AR 670-1 and to remove and not wear the earrings while on post. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 September 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 October 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 February 2004 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / some college / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 2 years, 8 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the GWOTSM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Thirty Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct and six for performance counseling. Summarized Article 15, 9 May 2006, for being derelict in the performance of duties on 8 April 2006. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, 27 June 2006, for dereliction of duties by failing to stay awake on guard duty on 21 and 23 May 2006. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $407 pay (suspended) and extra duty for seven days. Military Police Report, 15 July 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: assault consummated by a battery; failure to obey an order; assault by striking, beating, or wounding; and spouse abuse (on post). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, 17 August 2006, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 27 June 2006, was vacated for violating Article 128, unlawfully striking spouse in the face with a closed fist on 15 July 2006. FG Article 15, September 2006, for striking spouse in the face with a closed fist on 15 July 2006 and disobeying an NCO on 15 July 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $797 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Progress Notes, undated, reflect the applicant was being treated for primary diagnosis as PTSD and secondary as “Depressive Disorder NOS,” with increased medications, and had a follow-up appointment on 1 October 2014. VA Progress Notes, 18 November 2014, reflect the applicant’s treatment for history of depression and PTSD, had reported being homeless, history of anger outbursts, panic disorder, and flashbacks. The Psychiatric Diagnoses were: Posttraumatic Stress DO (309.81); Unspecified Depressive DO (311); Adjustment DO with depressed mood (309.0); rule out Unspecified Personality DO (301.9). (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, 31 August 2006, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the separation proceedings and was mentally responsible. The diagnoses were: Axis I: “Conduct Disorder” and Axis II: “r/o Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” The examiner indicated the diagnoses represent a psychiatric disorder within the meaning of AR 40-501, AR 635-200, and DSM-IV. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; health records, and VA medical records. 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 14-12b, 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the discharge requires corrections to either an honorable or a medical and honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends having recurring nightmares about the incident on post, an assault occurring at the hands of seven military Soldiers; and being diagnosed with PTSD, major depression, and suicidal thoughts. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses and treatment with prescribed medications for PTSD and depressive disorder. The applicant’s AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 31 August 2006, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible. The MSE does indicate diagnoses of: Conduct Disorder and/or Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and the diagnoses represent psychiatric disorders within the meaning of AR 40-501 and DSM-IV. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the medical records were not examined or considered the latter incident, and the command merely desired to separate the applicant immediately because of family hardships. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including leaders preparing the applicant to attain the rank of sergeant. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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: Major Depressive Disorder, IPV, PTSD, Panic Disorder, Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder that developed after he was the victim of a physical assault in August 2006. There is no evidence that applicant’s post-service diagnoses of PTSD, Panic Disorder, or Adjustment Disorder existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder that developed after he was the victim of a physical assault in August 2006, which are potentially mitigating BH conditions. While MDD and IPV can have a nexus with avoidance and difficulty with authority, the majority of the misconduct that led to applicant’s separation occurred prior to the physical assault and resulting MDD. As a result, applicant’s physical assault and MDD did not contribute to any misconduct that occurred prior to August 2006. Also, there is no natural sequela between MDD or being physically assaulted and failing to maintain sideburns to standard or wearing earrings on post since neither condition interferes with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. The FTR that occurred in September 2006 is mitigated by applicant’s BH conditions. Finally, there is no evidence that applicant’s post-service diagnoses of PTSD, Panic Disorder, or Adjustment Disorder existed during military service, so these conditions do not offer any mitigation. (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 Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – pattern of misconduct – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention but found the available evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant’s BH diagnosis outweighed the basis for the applicant’s separation. (2) The applicant contends the discharge requires corrections to either an honorable or a medical and honorable discharge. The Board considered this contention but found the available evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant’s BH diagnosis outweighed the basis for the applicant’s separation. Furthermore, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. (3) The applicant contends having recurring nightmares about the incident on post, an assault occurring at the hands of seven military Soldiers; and being diagnosed with PTSD, major depression, and suicidal thoughts. The Board considered this contention and found there is no evidence that applicant’s post-service diagnoses of PTSD, Panic Disorder, or Adjustment Disorder existed during military service, so these conditions do not offer any mitigation. 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. (4) The applicant contends the medical records were not examined or considered the latter incident, and the command merely desired to separate the applicant immediately because of family hardships. The Board considered this contention and found the applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. (5) The applicant contends good service, including leaders preparing the applicant to attain the rank of sergeant. The Board considered the applicant’s two years of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the offenses of FTR, disrespect, sleeping on guard duty and domestic assault. 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 Major Depressive Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of FTR, disrespect, sleeping on guard duty and domestic assault. There is no evidence that the applicant’s post service diagnosis of PTSD, Panic Disorder or Adjustment Disorder existed during military service so these conditions do not offer any mitigation for the significant misconduct. 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. (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 AR20210001713 1