1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: N/A 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a desire to apply for education benefits and needs the discharge upgraded to qualify. The applicant is an Afghanistan combat veteran who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and is 100 percent service- connected disabled. The applicant has been discharged for over two years and believes the applicant was suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident. The applicant's offense was operating a vehicle under the influence in Alaska, although the applicant had not driven the vehicle nor was the applicant going to drive before becoming sober. The applicant was sleeping it off in the vehicle outside the base gate when the applicant was approached by the military police and cited for driving under the influence (DUI). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression outweighing the applicant's DUI offense. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a change 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 characterization of service and reentry code are 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 10 July 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant physically controlled a vehicle while drunk. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 May 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 June 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91E2P, Allied Trade Specialist / 4 years, 8 months, 4 days / The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects 1 month, 24 days of total prior inactive service, which appears to be accredited to the period the applicant was in the Delayed Entry Program. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 December 2008 - 29 February 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (26 March 2010 - 13 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 14 March 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: drunken driving, under Article 111, UCMJ (on post) on 9 March 2013. A military police officer, located the applicant in the driver's seat with the engine off and the vehicle keys in the applicant's lap. The applicant was administered a series of field sobriety tests and performed poorly. The applicant refused to provide a sample of breath according to the implied consent warning and refused to acknowledge with a signature. The applicant was transported to the hospital to provide a blood sample. Consultation Report on Contributor Material, dated 14 March 2013, reflects the applicant's blood contained 110 mg/dl of ethanol. Field Grade Article 15, dated 17 April 2013, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car while drunk (9 March 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and extra duty for 45 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 9 May 2013, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol. Security Forces observed the applicant in the driver's seat of the vehicle with the vehicle keys on the applicant's lap. The applicant failed a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and refused to provide a breath sample. Authorization was provided to seize and search a sample of the applicant's blood, which was positive for ethanol with a blood alcohol content of 0.110 percent. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter (page 3, date unavailable), reflecting the applicant was granted 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD with major depressive disorder (claimed as memory loss). (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 April 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative action under Chapter 14. 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative 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 unspecified substance use. Report of Medical Examination, dated 1 May 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section, among other conditions: Insomnia; poor sleep; and Soldier would like a sleep study. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; and VA letter. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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 current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and the VA granted the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant provided medical documents indicating the VA granted the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD with major depressive disorder (claimed as memory loss). The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 April 2013, which reflects 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 applicant was diagnosed with unspecified substance use. The MSE was 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: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with associated Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant is service connected for PTSD with evidence of associated Major Depressive Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is SC for PTSD, with evidence of associated Major Depressive Disorder. The presence of PTSD with associated depression provides psychiatric mitigation of the conduct leading to discharge. There is a nexus between PTSD/depression and operating or physically controlling a vehicle while under the influence, due to substance misuse to self-medicate psychiatric symptoms being part of the natural sequelae of PTSD and depression. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression outweighed the applicant's DUI basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and the VA granted the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression outweighed the applicant's DUI basis of separation. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression outweighing the applicant's DUI offense. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of a change 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 characterization of service and reentry code are proper and equitable and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined the characterization of service is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a Character of Honorable; no further relief is available. (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: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210001731 1