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 and to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, because of the undiagnosed PTSD, the applicant had a tough time readjusting after returning from a deployment in January 2009. It was tough for the applicant to be separated from the child the applicant had given birth to prior to deployment. The applicant was denied the chance to visit the child and was only allowed to see the child for a few days before being discharged on 23 April 2009. The applicant attempted to seek help through the Army Substance Abuse Program but was not given the opportunity. The applicant requested a rehabilitative transfer to another unit for a fresh start, but the chain of command denied the request. The applicant should have been given the option of seeking treatment that was more intensive. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder providing partial medical mitigation for applicant's alcohol-related misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed 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 reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 23 April 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 March 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 31 May 2008, the applicant received a local letter of reprimand for having an inappropriate relationship between oneself and a noncommissioned officer, after an informal 15-6 investigation, initiated on 29 April 2008, was completed on 4 May 2008, with a recommendation for the applicant to receive an administrative reprimand for the actions. On 12 September 2008, the applicant received a CG Article 15 for violating AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14b(5), by wrongfully having an inappropriate relationship with a Specialist at the time the applicant was a noncommissioned officer. On 29 January 2009, the applicant was counseled for having a BAC of .29 percent and had to be transported to the Samaritan Hospital, where the applicant bit a nurse when forced to be restrained by a doctor. On 3 February 2009, the applicant was reported in the blotter for a suicide gesture by attempting to jump out of the window; the breathalyzer test administered by an MP showed a BAC of .22 percent; the applicant was then transported to the hospital for observation; and while at the hospital, the applicant showed severe signs of intoxication causing the applicant to be restrained for the safety of oneself and the hospital staff. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 April 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2004 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 31B20, Military Police / 4 years, 11 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 May 2003 - 29 December 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (17 November 2005 - 2 August 2006); (11 November 2007 - 29 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-2, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Developmental Counseling Forms for pending separation and two alcohol-related incidents. Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 4 May 2008, reflects the investigation officer (IO) found sufficient evidence to suggest a strong perception of an inappropriate relationship between SGT T. and the applicant, which appeared unprofessional and inappropriate as an NCO. The IO recommended an administrative reprimand for both SGT T. and the applicant, and CPL D., for their actions. Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 21 May 2008, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for having an inappropriate relationship with SGT D. M. T., who was married. Memorandum for Record with its allied investigative documents, dated 1 August 2008, reflects a commander's inquiry determined the applicant did have an inappropriate relationship with SPC C., and recommended both parties receive FG Article 15 punishments. The commander concurred with the findings and recommended punishment by a FG Article 15 for the applicant because the behavior was clearly inappropriate. FG Article 15, dated 13 September 2008, for violating a lawful regulation, AR 600-20, by wrongfully having an inappropriate relationship with SPC D. J. C. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 4 February 2009, reflects the applicant was reported for: suicide - gesture (on-post), by attempting to jump out of the second story room window while intoxicated and in a depressed state of mind. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 4 February 2009, reflects the applicant was command-referred in the ASAP. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 March 2009, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically 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 MSE recommendation was to continue with mental health services until separation from the Army was completed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Medical Records (print date of 23 February 2016), reflects diagnoses and treatment for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 18 March 2009, reflects the applicant noted behavioral health issues and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: "Not being treated and Anxiety - follow up with behavioral health." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; USAR Separation Orders; and eight third-party letters. Additional Evidence: VA Medical Records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant 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 having a difficult time readjusting after returning from a deployment because of an undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses and treatment of PTSD and major depressive disorder by the VA, and prescribed medication. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 March 2009, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends family issues, such as being separated from the child the applicant had given birth to prior to deployment and being denied the chance to visit the child, 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 attempting to seek help through the Army Substance Abuse Program, but was not given the opportunity. The applicant's AMHRR show the applicant was command- referred into the program on 4 February 2009. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends having requested a rehabilitative transfer to another unit for a fresh start, was denied by the chain of command. 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 the chain of command should have given the applicant the option of seeking treatment that was more intensive. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. 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, Anxiety, Depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (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, Anxiety, and Depression. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also existed during military service. (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 behavioral health conditions partially mitigate the applicant's misconduct. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Applicant's BH conditions provide partial mitigation for the basis of separation. Given the nexus between PTSD/Depression and self-medicating with substances, the alcohol-related incidents resulting in medical attention at the hospital are mitigated. While biting someone would not typically be mitigated, there is strong evidence that applicant's BH conditions contributed to this behavior given the fact that the incident occurred while the applicant was intoxicated and receiving treatment in the hospital. Applicant's inappropriate relationships are not mitigated by any of her BH conditions. There is no natural sequela between an Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Anxiety, or PTSD and having an inappropriate relationship. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's alcohol-related misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having a difficult time readjusting after returning from a deployment because of an undiagnosed PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's alcohol-related misconduct. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that it was valid based on the presence of factors mitigating the applicant's misconduct. (3) The applicant contends family issues such as being separated from the child the applicant had given birth to prior to deployment, and being denied the chance to visit the child, affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's alcohol abuse misconduct. (4) The applicant contends attempting to seek help through the Army Substance Abuse Program but was not given the opportunity. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's alcohol abuse misconduct. (5) The applicant contends having requested a rehabilitative transfer to another unit for a fresh start, was denied by the chain of command. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant's AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. (6) The applicant contends the chain of command should have given the applicant the option of seeking treatment that was more intensive. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's alcohol abuse misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder providing partial medical mitigation for applicant's alcohol-related misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed 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 reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder along with her length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the applicant's alcohol-related misconduct. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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: Honorable 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 AR20210001803 1