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, since being discharged in April 2015, the applicant has had trouble getting a job, both in civilian and government employment. The applicant believes the discharge was evaluated incorrectly. The applicant completed over four years of meritorious service both in garrison and overseas. After returning from downrange and PCS two months after returning home, the applicant was diagnosed with severe PTSD and a TBI, for which the applicant went through both physical therapy and psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations for over 30 days. The applicant went through the entire MED Board process to get medically retired for three different mental and physical disabilities. The applicant states deserving respect and honor for the service which was given to the country and requests an upgrade to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 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: 6 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 March 2014, the applicant physically assaulted the spouse and was in possession of an unregistered firearm while on Fort Campbell. On 17 June 2014, the applicant physically assaulted the spouse again. On 21 July 2014, the applicant failed to be at appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 December 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority found the Soldier’s conditions were not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative elimination, the circumstances in the Soldier’s case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings should continue. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 March 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / High School Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, 2B U6 Cannon Crewmember / 4 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 February 2011 – 17 March 2013 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 January 2013 – 3 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 26 March 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Simple Assault Consummated by battery; Failure to register weapon; Spouse Abuse civilian person; Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) collection kit (on post). Military Police Report, dated 17 June 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault Consummated by battery; Spouse Abuse civilian person (on post). FG Article 15, dated 12 November 2014, for wrongfully striking H., on two occasions between 21 March and 17 June 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended) forfeiture of $858 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 7 January 2015, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 11 December 2014, was vacated for: Article 128. On or about 22 December 2014, commit an assault upon H., throwing at the victim with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 July 2014, 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 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. Disorder. service member (SM) was seen for a non-confidential evaluation for AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c. It was explained to SM about the non-confidential nature of this evaluation and a report would be released to the command. SM consented for release of report. SM has deployed x2 (2010 to 2011 and 2012 to 2013 to Afghanistan). SM is currently involved in BH services with IEBH. Soldier meets medical retention per AR 40-504. SM was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy Memo 10-040. Results were positive for PTSD and mTBI. SM is psychiatrically cleared for Chapter 14-12c consideration per Command. The Integrated Narrative Summary, dated 30 December 2014, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD chronic. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 July 2014, as previously descried in paragraph 4j(1). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 November 2014, 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 positive results. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, Axis III: Lumbago mild TBI vs post-concussion syndrome. Service member (SM) with PTSD and possible mTBI. Service member (SM) is not cleared for separation. PTSD Diagnosis made via clinical interview and review of results of psychological testing in addition to neuro psychological testing. SM has never completed a trial of evidence- based therapy for PTSD. The applicant does not meet medical retention standards. The applicant was referred to a MEB. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 31 December 2014, reflect the following diagnosis: PTSD Chronic; medically unacceptable; Degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine (VA Ox; Lumbar DDD with right lower extremity radiculopathy-per history & imaging); medically unacceptable; Right lower extremity radiculopathy (VA Ox; Lumbar ODD with right lower extremity radiculopathy-per history & imaging); medically unacceptable. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; Memorandum, dated 2 March 2015; Integrated Narrative Summary; DA Form 3822. 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 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends being diagnosed with severe PTSD and TBI, for which the applicant went through both physical therapy and psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations for over 30 days. The applicant went through the entire MED Board process to get medically retired for three different mental and physical disabilities. The AMHRR includes Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 November 2014, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, Axis III: Lumbago mild TBI vs post-concussion syndrome. The Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 31 December 2014, reflect the following diagnosis: PTSD Chronic; medically unacceptable; Degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine (VA Ox; Lumbar DDD with right lower extremity radiculopathy-per history & imaging); medically unacceptable; Right lower extremity radiculopathy (VA Ox; Lumbar ODD with right lower extremity radiculopathy-per history & imaging); medically unacceptable. The MSE and MEB proceedings were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the discharge was evaluated incorrectly. 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 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 of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. 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 with associated diagnoses to include major depression and anxiety disorder NOS, and mild TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence of PTSD (with associated major depression and anxiety disorder nos) and mild TBI at the time of service. PTSD and TBI are both service connected. (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 has clear evidence of PTSD (with associated major depression and anxiety disorder nos, which does not change any patterns of mitigation associated with PTSD described below) and mild TBI at the time of service and related offenses. The record does not contain evidence that the TBI resulted in noteworthy impairment of cognition, judgment, or behavior. PTSD mitigates failure to report as this is associated with avoidance behaviors associated with the natural sequalae of PTSD. Neither PTSD nor a TBI of the nature documented in applicant’s records results in the inability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right, and there is no nexus between either of these circumstances and the multiple counts of assault and possession of an unregistered firearm described in the basis of separation. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD with associated diagnoses to include major depression and anxiety disorder NOS, and mild TBI outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – multiple domestic assaults and possession of an unregistered firearm. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with severe PTSD and a TBI, for which the applicant went through both physical therapy and psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations for over 30 days. The applicant went through the entire MED Board process to get medically retired for three different mental and physical disabilities and feels that they should have been medically separated instead of administratively separated. The memo dated 02 Mar 15 by the separation authority directly addressed the applicant’s significant physical and mental disqualifying issues. The Board determined that the separation authority thoroughly and duly considered whether to proceed with an administrative separation. The Board agreed that the applicant’s medical issues were not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the applicant’s serious misconduct making the administrative separation the appropriate decision. (2) The applicant contends that the diagnosis of PTSD only two months after the end of the deployment was not considered at the time of separation. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s BH condition and determined that a discharge is not warranted based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense. (3) The applicant contends four years of honorable service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant’s 4 years of service, including a combat tour in Afghanistan and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s possession of an unregistered weapon on post or the multiple domestic assaults on their spouse. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service employment requirements do not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of domestic assault and possession of an unregistered firearm. 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 PTSD with associated diagnoses to include major depression and anxiety disorder NOS, and mild TBI did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of domestic assault and possession of an unregistered firearm. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding applicant’s PTSD diagnosis and it’s consideration during the separation process and found that totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001820 1