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, a desire to continue with life after service and use the GI bill to go to school. The applicant was diagnosed with service-connected PTSD and Alcohol dependance after returning from deployment to Afghanistan in 2012. The applicant was placed on several medications with many side effects including sleep problems. The applicant never was in trouble in the military before having these issues and was the above average Soldier earning awards as early as AIT. The therapist asked the chain of command to move the applicant to a WTU; however, the request was denied. While going through therapy and coping with the stress of a unit, which the applicant no longer looked at the applicant as viable, the applicant made mistakes and if they could go back and change them, they would. The applicant made bad choices but has been denied promotion because of the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 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: 12 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 May 2013, the applicant assaulted B. C. and was drunk and disorderly; The applicant failed to report to accountability formation on divers occasions (11 and 13 June 2013; 1 and 7 October 2013; 19 November 2013; 28 March 2014; and, 6 June 2014); The applicant failed to report to medical appointments on divers occasions (2 July 2013; 1 April 2014; and 13 May 2014); and, On 10 August 2014, the applicant damaged government property. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority viewed the chapter action and directed the applicant be processed under administrative separation provisions, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, IAW paragraph 1-33, AR 635-200. The Medical Evaluation Board findings indicate the applicant had Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder and was determined as a failure to meet retention standards by the MTF. The separation authority found the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct, and other circumstances did not warrant disability processing. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 September 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (30 July 2012 – 4 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 15 September 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 7 March 2014; Adverse Action (AA), effective 18 June 2014; Army Body Composition Program (KA), effective 27 July 2014; was ineligible for reenlistment due pending separation (9V). The applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-1 effective 8 August 2013. VA Rating Decision, dated 2 November 2015, reflects the applicant was granted a combined rating of 60 percent; however, the letter does not state the nature of the disability. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 14 August 2014, reflect the following diagnosis: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate. It also listed an alcohol dependence, which did not constitute a physical disability. The applicant did not meet retention standards and was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; CLI Letter including documents; VA Benefits Letter; Defense Counsel Memorandum; ARCOM Certificate; AAM Certificate; two DA Forms 638; DA Form 3947; DD Form 214. 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 14-12c 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 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 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. The applicant contends being diagnosed with service-connected PTSD and alcohol dependance after returning from deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant provided Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 14 August 2014, which reflect the following diagnosis: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate. It also listed an alcohol dependence, which did not constitute a physical disability. The applicant did not meet retention standards and was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. The applicant also provided a copy of VA Rating Decision, dated 2 November 2015, which reflects the applicant was granted a combined rating of 60 percent; however, the letter does not state the nature of the disability. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the therapist asked the chain of command to move the applicant to a WTU; however, the request was denied. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being denied promotion because of this discharge. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 Depression (subsuming related diagnoses to include Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety NOS) and mild TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found clear evidence of PTSD (now service connected) and Major Depression at the time of service, in addition to a history of TBI while in 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 applicant has clear evidence of PTSD (now service connected) and Major Depressive Disorder (in addition to multiple related diagnoses to include adjustment disorder and Anxiety NOS) at the time of service, in addition to mild TBI. However, there is no compelling evidence that the TBI was of such severity as to impair cognition, judgment, or behavior to such a degree as to mitigate any of the behaviors leading to discharge. The presence of PTSD and major depression mitigate some of the behaviors associated with discharge. Specifically, PTSD and major depression are both associated with alcohol misuse with associated minor disruptive behavior due to use of alcohol as a form of self-medication of psychiatric distress. PTSD is also associated with avoidance behaviors, leading to a nexus between FTRs and failure to attend medical appointments although advisor appreciates that missing medical appointments may have negatively impacted recovery and functioning. Neither PTSD nor depression impairs one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right and therefore neither condition mitigates assault, even if intoxicated, as there is no nexus between such conditions and assaultive behavior. Finally, neither PTSD nor major depression result in a nexus with destruction of government property and therefore provide no 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 while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the misconduct of FTRs, to include missing medical appointments, and being drunk and disorderly, however, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – assault, and damage of government property – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the medically unmitigated misconduct of assault, and damage of government property, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (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. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with service-connected PTSD and alcohol dependance after returning from deployment to Afghanistan. The Board considered this contention and determined that while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the misconduct of FTRs, to include missing medical appointments, and being drunk and disorderly, however, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – assault, and damage of government property. (4) The applicant contends the therapist asked the chain of command to move the applicant to a WTU; however, the request was denied. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, or provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends being denied promotion because of this discharge. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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, while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the misconduct of FTRs, to include missing medical appointments, and being drunk and disorderly, however, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, MDD, and TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – assault, and damage of government property. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20210001777 1