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, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over four years of service with no other adverse action. The applicant spent 15 months in Iraq and received numerous awards, including a Combat Action Badge and an Army Good Conduct Medal. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and was in the process of being medically boarded out of the Army prior to being separated for patterns of misconduct. The applicant believes the Army used the discharge to save on medical expenses and medical retirement, as outlined in several media outlets and letters from several Senators addressed to the Army Inspector General. The applicant contends serving with distinction until after an IED blast in Iraq. Of the three things listed in the pattern of misconduct discharge, the applicant states only one should have been considered. The applicant contends the counseling statements in the discharge packet were forged and they tried to report them, but because the applicant was in a detachment that included military police investigators, no one would listen. The applicant received one Article 15 during their military career and believes it was warranted; however, the applicant also believes if not for the mental health problems, the behavior would have been different. Upon returning from deployment, the applicant had problems adjusting to life back in the States and was seeing a psychiatrist regularly. The applicant was placed on several prescription medications. The applicant contends since the discharge graduating from college, found gainful employment in the emergency medical field, and has volunteered countless hours in the community as a firefighter or EMT with three local departments. The applicant received several awards and commendations from those organizations. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 February 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant has two warrants for arrest, received two Letters of Concern from the Company Commander, failed to report to duty numerous times, and received a Field Grade Article 15 for conspiracy to commit fraud and impersonating an NCO. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 April 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 September 2008 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: E-4 / High School Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 7 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 August 2005 – 18 September 2008 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 March 2007 – 17 May 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Killeen Municipal Court of Record, dated 27 January 2009, reflects the applicant was found guilty in four of the five charges. Commander’s Report, dated 4 March 2010, reflects the applicant received an FG Article 15 for impersonating a noncommissioned officer to conspire larceny of $1500 from World Finance, thus violating Articles 81 and 134 of the UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $784 and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Memorandum for Record, dated 17 March 2010, reflects the applicant associating with extremist organizations. The applicant has publicly aligned himself with skinhead organizations even after receiving specific EO classes about how detrimental those organizations are to the Army and researching and writing an essay on the same. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 6 days (NIF, 16 February 2010 – 21 February 2010) / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant submitted a DD Form 293 that asserts that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 January 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant deeded further examination. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and Depression. The applicant currently completed an MEB due to service limiting conditions and does not request further evaluation or services at this time. The applicant was and is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant is appropriate for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command to include Chapter 14-12 discharge. Screened for PTSD and mTBI. While symptomatic for both (per intake, interview, and medical record review), SM is currently receiving treatment at CRDAMC and the MEB Narsum has been completed at this time. SM does not request additional evaluation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Letter to Acting under Secretary of the Army. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends graduating college, finding gainful employment in the emergency medical field, and volunteering countless hours in the community as a firefighter/EMT with three local departments; and received several awards and commendations from those organizations. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 being diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the contention, other than the applicant’s statement. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD and depression. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 January 2010, 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 being in the process of being medically boarded out of the Army prior to being separated for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s official records reflect a temporary “1” profile (DA Form 3349) for PTSD/TBI that reflects the profiling officer recommended referral to MEB. However, the DA Form 3349 does not reflect the approval authority signature reflecting that the applicant was referred to an MEB. AR 635-200, para 1-34b states that a Soldier is considered in the DES process on the date that the DA Form 3349 is signed by the physician approval authority. The applicant contends the Army used the discharge to save on medical expenses and medical retirement, as outlined in several media outlets and letters from several Senators addressed to the Army Inspector General. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5 states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant’s AHMRR reflects that the applicant served in SWA / Iraq (3 March 2007 – 17 May 2008); received ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, CAB; and served as E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 7 months, 23 days. The applicant contends graduating college, finding gainful employment in the emergency medical field, and having volunteered countless hours in the community as a firefighter/EMT with three local departments; and received several awards and commendations from those organizations. 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, PTSD, Major Depression, and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and a TBI. The VA has also service-connected applicant's PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD/Depression mitigate the applicant’s FTS given the nexus between PTSD/Depression and avoidance. However, the Board Medical Advisor opined that none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, or associating with extremist organizations because there is no natural sequela between applicant’s behavioral health conditions and these offense or that 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, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD and Depression mitigated the FTR misconduct, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention, and while the applicant’s PTSD/Depression partially mitigated the applicant’s misconduct, the Board determined that due to the nature of the offenses, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and TBI do not outweigh the misconduct of impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations. Thus, no relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends that the only one of the reasons should have been considered for the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of discharge as the applicant would not have been arrested for not paying an outstanding ticket had the officer submitted the ticket to the court timely. Further, the applicant contends that the applicant’s checkbook was stolen and the applicant paid off the stolen checks. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to warrant an upgrade. (3) The applicant contends that the applicant was denied computer access to write a rebuttal statement for the applicant’s chapter proceedings. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or submitted by the applicant to warrant an upgrade. (4) The applicant contends being in the process of being medically boarded out of the Army prior to being separated for pattern of misconduct. 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. (5) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and found it to be non-persuasive during deliberations as the applicant’s assertion alone does not outweigh the nature of the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct - impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations. (6) 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. The applicant’s misconduct involving impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (7) The applicant contends graduating college, finding gainful employment in the emergency medical field, and having volunteered countless hours in the community as a firefighter/EMT with three local departments; and received several awards and commendations from those organizations. The Board considered this applicant’s post-service conduct and determined that it does not outweigh the severity of the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for separation - impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations. 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 after applying liberal consideration to the evidence because, while the applicant’s Depression and PTSD mitigated the FTR misconduct, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – impersonating an NCO, conspiring to commit fraud, and associating with extremist organizations. The Board did not consider any impropriety contentions as the applicant did not submit any impropriety contentions. The Board further considered the applicant’s inequity contentions and determined there was 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 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 AR20210001819 1 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001819 1