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, entering the service cleared from any medical issues, serving the country honorably, and was awarded for three years of outstanding service with a Good Conduct Medal. The applicant endured mistreatment on multiple occasions throughout the career that ultimately led to hospitalization and attempts to end their life. A mental health condition so severe should have been recognized by the service by proper treatment, medical profile and a proper medical separation administered by the military’s medical evaluation board and physical evaluation board. The applicant’s psychiatric condition made it a challenge to continue to perform MOS as an MP where for three years the applicant was an exceptional Soldier. The inability to disclose true feeling should not bar the applicant from receiving a proper medical board. The applicant states the diagnoses are PTSD (noncombat), Major depression, and Anxiety. The applicant states the company and battalion commander insisted the applicant be diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Border Personality Disorder (BPD) so the applicant could not be medically discharged out of the Army. Adjustment Disorder and BPD were the two main reasons the command had used to discharge the applicant. Under both disorders, the applicant had a difficult time adjusting and acclimating to a situation, place, or gathering. The applicant contends being discharged while in a medical treatment facility for a suicide attempt. The applicant was a medical failure at Walter Reed Navy Medical Center and 4 North Fort Belvoir Hospital because the command focused on how to discharge the applicant instead of assisting and providing support. The applicant states they attempted to end their life multiple times. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 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 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: 30 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 May 2015, the commander stated the servicemember refused to sign. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failure to complete a task, failure to report, false official statement, disrespect to non-commissioned officer on three occasions, failure to obey an order, and improperly gaining access to Ft. Lee while disregarding guard order to stop. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 17 June 2015, it was noted by the applicant’s legal counsel, matters will be provided when servicemember gains access to a computer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 July 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 January 2011 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / Bachelor’s Degree / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 10 September 2014, for being disrespectful in language on four occasions, on 7 May 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $474 (suspended); and extra duty for 14 days and oral reprimand. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 2 December 2015, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Depression, Anxiety, Manic Depression, and Bipolar Disorder. VA Benefits Decision letter, dated 12 August 2019, reflects an evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 April 2015, 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 / 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: Adjustment Disorder Unspecified. No recommended precautions at this time as the Service Member is currently being treated in a local civilian psychiatric hospital. It is the professional opinion of the undersigned this service member will not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation (such as transfer), disciplinary action or reclassification), or to any behavioral health treatment methods currently available in the military. Service member has been screened for substance use disorders (alcohol and drugs), no indication of any Substance- Related and Addictive Disorders conditions. Service Member was seen for a Mental Status Evaluation in conjunction with Chapter 14 administrative separation proceedings and cleared for such action. Aftercare services will be obtained through this department following discharge from Poplar Springs Hospital. Note there are no psychiatric profiles or MEB proceedings presently in effect through this department. Despite the individual's significant endorsement of psychiatric symptomatology, the diagnostic impression in this setting has been of an Adjustment Disorder Unspecified. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Disability Questionnaire; Chapter 14 instructions; The American Legion Department of Minnesota cover letter; Introduction letter; Enlisted Record Brief; self-authored letter; three letters of support; VA Benefits letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has sought employment and treatment. 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 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 being diagnosed with PTSD (noncombat), Major depression, and Anxiety. The applicant provided a Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 2 December 2015, reflecting a diagnosis of PTSD. In addition, a VA Benefits Decision letter, dated 12 August 2019, reflecting an evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD with Depressed Mood and Anxiety. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in-service Adjustment Disorder Unspecified. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 29 April 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the company and battalion commander insisted the applicant be diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Border Personality Disorder (BPD) so the applicant could not be medically discharged out of the Army. The applicant contends being a medical failure at Walter Reed Navy Medical Center and 4 North Fort Belvoir Hospital because the command focused on how to discharge the applicant instead of assisting and providing support. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends enduring mistreatment on multiple occasions throughout their career that ultimately led to hospitalization and attempts to end their life. 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 applicant should have been medically discharged. 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 not being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality, Soldier. The applicant contends good service. The third-party statements provided with the application speak of the applicant’s medical issues and recognize the applicant’s issues after leaving the Army. The applicant contends obtaining employment and seeking treatment. 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: Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder NOS, PTSD, and MST. Additionally, the applicant asserts Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in service diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder and Depressive Disorder, NOS. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD related to MST. Service connection establishes that the applicant's PTSD and MST existed during military service. Additionally, the applicant self-asserts Anxiety. (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 applicant’s Depressive Disorder, PTSD/MST mitigate the applicant’s failure to complete assigned tasks as these behavioral health conditions can interfere with daily functioning. Further, the applicant’s PTSD/MST mitigate the applicant’s offenses of disrespect, failure to obey orders, and FTR as there is a nexus between PTSD/MST and difficulty with authority and avoidance. However, the none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using an outbound traffic lane as these conditions do not interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder NOS, PTSD, MST and anxiety outweighed a portion of the basis for the applicant’s separation – failing to complete assigned tasks, disrespect, failing to obey lawful orders, and FTRs; however, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder NOS, PTSD, MST, and anxiety did not medically mitigate the basis of separation misconduct of making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using and outbound traffic lane for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. The applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct that included failing to complete assigned tasks, failure to obey lawful orders, FTRs, making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using an outbound traffic lane. Although there is medical mitigation for failing to complete assigned tasks, failure to obey lawful orders, and FTRs, the misconduct of making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using an outbound traffic lane is not mitigated. The medically unmitigated misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to honorable; thus, the current discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD (noncombat), Major depression, and Anxiety. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant is diagnosed with PTSD, depressive disorder NOS, adjustment disorder and MST. The applicant’s PTSD/MST mitigated the applicant’s misconduct of failing to complete assigned tasks, failure to obey lawful orders, and FTRs, but did not mitigate the applicant’s making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using an outbound traffic lane. The Board voted the current discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the company and battalion commander insisted the applicant be diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Border Personality Disorder (BPD) so the applicant could not be medically discharged out of the Army. The applicant contends being a medical failure at Walter Reed Navy Medical Center and 4 North Fort Belvoir Hospital because the command focused on how to discharge the applicant instead of assisting and providing support. The Board considered this contention; however, the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof by providing evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s evidence was insufficient and the discharge was appropriate. (4) The applicant contends enduring mistreatment on multiple occasions throughout their career that ultimately led to hospitalization and attempts to end their life. The Board considered this contention; however, the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof by providing evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s evidence was insufficient and the discharge was appropriate (5) The applicant contends they should have been medically discharged. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (6) The applicant contends not being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted, as the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention that the discharge was improper or inequitable. The applicant’s official record reflects that the applicant received several counseling statements and received a rehabilitative transfer to Walter Reed. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (7) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the applicant’s 4 years of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant, but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct - making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using an outbound traffic lane. (8) The applicant contends obtaining employment and seeking treatment. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s obtaining employment and seeking treatment do not outweigh the medically unmitigated misconduct - making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using and outbound traffic lane. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 Adjustment Disorder, Depressive Disorder NOS, PTSD, MST, and Anxiety did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of making a false official statement and improperly gaining access to the base using and outbound traffic lane. This remaining medically unmitigated misconduct fell below the level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable. 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, 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 / 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 AR20210001755 1