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, due to receiving an Article 15 on 24 October 2013, the applicant was reduced in rank and pay from E4 to E3. The JAG informed the applicant the separation would not be based on the Article 15. In the separation papers, the commander and the applicant agreed it was in the best interest to separate from the Army due to undiagnosed PTSD and a 10-day stay in a hospital. The applicant could no longer focus on duties. Upon return from Iraq, the applicant’s personal and financial life had begun to unravel with a pending divorce, the loss of custody of a child, PCS, and trying to handle PTSD. The inability to sleep due to nightmares had severely affected judgment. These are reasons, not excuses; the applicant knows and assumes full responsibility for not notifying the proper channels for help. The applicant contends being punished twice for the same situation by losing rank and pay and then being discharged with a general discharge. The applicant states being an outstanding Soldier, who had engaged in combat multiple times, which resulted in earning the Combat Action Badge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 January 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Serious Misconduct, on or about 31 July 2013, with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: a handover book, which record was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false; On or about 31 July 2013, were derelict in the performance of those duties, the applicant willfully failed to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do; fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 5 February 2014, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 February 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 August 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15S10, OH-58D Helicopter Repairer / 4 years, 7 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Iraq (31 January 2011 – 6 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander’s report, dated 29 January 2014, reflects a Company Grade Article 15, dated 24 October 2013; offenses- Violation of Article 92 and Article 107; found guilty of all charges and sentenced to the reduction in rank of E-3, forfeiture of $1,007 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 22 April 2014, 45 days extra duty, oral reprimand. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Summary of Benefits letter, dated 17 April 2023, reflects an evaluation of 30 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Examination, dated 30 September 2013, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Major Depression. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 November 2013, 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 diagnosed with: Major Depressive Disorder. Service member (SM) has been screened for substance use disorders ( alcohol and drugs). SM has no ASAP history. SM was seen for the Chapter 14-12c mental status examination for falsifying flight maintenance records. SM denies SI/Hl. SM has a behavioral health history, however, the condition in not disabling. SM will follow-up with treatment as scheduled throughout the chapter process. The SM was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy memo 10-040 (findings were negative). This Soldier meets medical retention requirements IAW AR40-501 and is therefore cleared for administrative separation under Chapter 14-12c. Report of Medical History, dated 22 November 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Major Depression, and other behavior health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states being employed as a State Corrections Officer and having the opportunity to help veterans. 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’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 changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 having PTSD. The applicant provided a VA Summary of Benefits letter, dated 17 April 2023, reflecting an evaluation of 30 percent for PTSD. The AMHRR reflects a Report of Medical Examination, dated 30 September 2013, and History dated 22 November 2013, reflects Major Depression and other behavioral health issues. Also, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 20 November 2013, which reflects a diagnosis of: Major Depressive Disorder. The MSE and medical reports were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being punished twice for the same situation by losing rank and pay and then being discharged with a general discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends obtaining employment and volunteering in the community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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: PTSD and 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 and is now service connected (SC) for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is 100% SC for PTSD and has diagnosis of major depressive disorder while on active duty. Evidence also suggests applicant may have been the victim of IPV while on Active Duty. However, while the advisor appreciates the difficult circumstances it appears applicant was facing at the time of applicant’s misconduct, such conditions and circumstances do not result in the inability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right; there is no nexus between applicant’s circumstances/conditions and conduct related to discharge, which are all in essence related to falsifying flight maintenance records. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate as the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse the applicant willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends having PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD during military service. However, the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends being punished twice for the same situation by losing rank and pay and then being discharged with a general discharge. 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. Considering the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s family issues does not mitigate the applicant’s willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection as the Army affords many avenues to Soldier’s including seeking separation for hardship. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant’s 4 years of service, including a combat tour in Iraq and the numerous awards but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection. (6) The applicant contends obtaining employment and volunteering in the community. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant obtaining employment and volunteering in the community do not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. 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 PTSD and major depressive disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of willfully failing to finish the preventative phase of maintenance, as it was the applicant’s duty to do and fraudulent use of a PID on an aircraft technical inspection. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding being punished twice for the same situation and found that totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001753 1