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 rushed, and the applicant did not realize how bad it would affect them in the civilian world. The applicant served almost seven and half years and was a great Soldier. The applicant never received a negative counseling; maxed every PT test after AIT; and, volunteered with poot [sic] functions and unit functions. No trouble from the applicant until the applicant found out the person they were dating was married and the applicant was in trouble for this while on tour in Iraq in 2009. It hit the applicant hard and after redeploying in 2010, the applicant went to anger management and a psychiatrist and started taking medication. The negative counseling statements were all for failure to report and in the morning. The applicant had to have the dosage of the medication lowered because it was affecting the sleep and the applicant was depressed. The work ethics were always great, and the PT score was always above max. The applicant was depressed and did not care. The applicant deserved help instead of punishment and is now being denied help because they do not have an honorable discharge. The applicant served two tours in Iraq and when the applicant started receiving negative counseling statements it was around 2010. The applicant was a great Soldier who fought and was there for the country, now the applicant needs help. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 June 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: 9 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 January 2011 and 11 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In January 2009, the applicant physically took control of a motor vehicle while the applicant’s blood-alcohol level was .16 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of whole blood; In September 2009, the applicant failed to follow a lawful order, wrongfully had an inappropriate relationship, and wrongfully communicated a threat by telephone message; In December 2009, the applicant failed to follow a lawful order to be in the room between the hours of 2100 and 0800; and, In September 2010, the applicant, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 3 February 2011, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 February 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 July 2006 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 36B10, Financial Management Technician / 7 years, 2 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 December 2003 – 13 July 2006 / HD / The applicant’s DD Form 214, block 12a appears to have an erroneous entry and reflects 29 December 2003. e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (9 February 2006 – 27 July 2006; 29 July 2009 – 24 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 29 January 2009, reflects the applicant was reprimanded in accordance with Army Regulation 190-5, paragraph 2-7 for driving while impaired on 8 January 2009, with a blood-alcohol level of .16 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of whole blood. While driving while impaired, the applicant fled the scene after causing property damage. Furthermore, the applicant provided false information to Officer S., concerning their identity and marital status. FG Article 15, dated 2 October 2009, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 8 September 2009; having an inappropriate relationship SPC M. H., a married person not the spouse from about 7 July 2009 to about 21 August 2009; wrongfully communicate to SPC C. H. a threat by telephone voice message on or about 21 August 2009; and wrongfully communicate to SPC C. H. by electronic mail (e-mail) a threat on or about 21 August 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, suspended; forfeiture of $930 pay per month for one month, suspended; and extra duty for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 18 December 2009, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 2 October 2009, was vacated for failing to obey a lawful order from MSG J. O. FG Article 15, dated 23 September 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 10 and 23 June 2010 and 6, 20 and 23 July 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, suspended; extra duty for 30 days, suspended; and restriction for 30 days. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for failure to be present for duty on five occasions and not present for flag detail. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE), dated 18 November 2010, reflects the applicant has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. It was noted this Soldier has had ongoing mental health issues since 2005. Solider has had some treatment, but none consistently. The current misbehavior (being late to formation for oversleeping and poor work performance) may be related to ongoing untreated depressed mood. Until the Soldier is evaluated further and given an opportunity to rehabilitate, Soldier should not be put out on a Chapter 14. At this time, this Soldier is NOT psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. Solider has been scheduled an assessment appointment with psychiatry and psychology and this provider will discuss the case with other providers and modify the recommendation for a chapter if deemed necessary. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 good service, including two combat tours. The applicant contends the discharge was rushed, and the applicant did not realize how bad the general (under honorable conditions) discharge would affect the applicant in the civilian world. The applicant needs help and not punishment; however, is being denied help because they do not have an honorable discharge. 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 going to anger management, seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication. The medication affected the applicant’s sleep and therefore the applicant received negative counseling statements for failure to report. The applicant’s AMHRR contains Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation (BHE), dated 18 November 2010, which reflects the applicant has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. It was noted this Soldier has had ongoing mental health issues since 2005. Solider has had some treatment, but none consistently. The current misbehavior (being late to formation for oversleeping and poor work performance) may be related to ongoing untreated depressed mood. Until the Soldier is evaluated further and given an opportunity to rehabilitate, Soldier should not be put out on a Chapter 14. At this time, this Soldier is not psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. Solider has been scheduled assessment appointment with psychiatry and psychology and this provider will discuss the case with other providers and modify the recommendation for a chapter if deemed necessary. The BHE was considered by the separation authority. 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: mood disorder per VA service connection and evidence of noteworthy depression on active duty. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant has a service-connected mood disorder and long documented history of depression/mood concerns. (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 mood disorder/depression mitigate the applicant’s offenses of FTR, failure to obey orders, and DUI as self-medication, avoidance, apathy/disengagement from responsibilities, and impaired energy/motivation are symptoms associated with Mood Disorder/Depression. However, the Board Medical Advisor opined that the applicant’s Mood Disorder/Depression do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of engaging in an inappropriate relationship, wrongfully communicating a threat, fleeing the scene after the applicant’s DUI or providing a false statement concerning the applicant’s DUI as such behaviors are not part of the natural sequelae of Mood Disorder/Depression and do not impair one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to 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 Depression/Mood Disorder mitigate the applicant’s offenses of failure to follow a lawful order, failures to report, and DUI, the applicant’s Depression/Mood disorder do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses – fleeing the scene, providing a false official statement, engaging in an inappropriate relationship and wrongfully communicating a threat. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered this contention and the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as the applicant’s six years of good service do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct of fleeing the scene, providing a false official statement, engaging in an inappropriate relationship, and wrongfully communicating a threat. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was rushed, and the applicant did not realize how bad the general (under honorable conditions) discharge would affect the applicant in the civilian world. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command during separation proceedings. Thus, the discharge was proper. (3) The applicant contends going to anger management, seeing a psychiatrist, and taking medication. The applicant further contends that medication affected the applicant’s sleep and therefore the applicant received negative counseling statements for failure to report. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigated the applicant’s FTR, failure to obey an order, and DUI offenses but did not warrant a discharge upgrade as there was insufficient evidence in the applicant’s record or provided by the applicant that outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct of fleeing the scene, providing a false official statement, engaging in an inappropriate relationship, and wrongfully communicating a threat. 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 Depression/mood disorder mitigated the misconduct of the failures to follow a lawful order, failures to report, and DUI, applicant’s Depression/mood disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s offenses – fleeing the scene, providing a false official statement, along with the inappropriate relationship and wrongfully communicating a threat. 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 – Noncommissione d 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 AR20210001828 1