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 based on three separate occasions of attempted suicide towards the end of the applicant’s last enlistment. The applicant was pending the outcome of a medical board for a medical discharge and a divorce when the incidents occurred. During this time, the applicant had requested to be transferred to a WTU; however, was denied. The applicant believes if they had been transferred to a WTU, they would have been allowed access to receive the proper medical treatment which could have prevented the three separate suicide attempts. Also, during the medical discharge process, the then spouse and the applicant separated and started divorce proceedings. This contributed to furthering the depression. VA awarded the applicant service-connected disability rating of 70 percent; 50 percent of the rating was attributed to PTSD. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 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: 8 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used, possessed a controlled substance and assault. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 10 September 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 May 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 February 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 7 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 13 September 2005 – 7 September 2006 / HD RA, 7 September 2006 – 31 January 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (1 September 2007 – 21 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AFC-CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 21 November 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP 2680, during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 24 October 2011. Two Administrative Orders, No Contact Order, dated 12 March 2012; and a No Driving Order, dated 20 April 2012. Military Police Report, dated 29 March 2012, reflects the applicant was arrested and charged with Assault-Consummated by a Battery (Article #128, UCMJ) (On Post); and, Spouse Abuse Civilian Victim (Article #134, UCMJ) (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 9 July 2012, for unlawfully striking M. C. in the face, neck, wrist and fingers with hands and forearms to pin M. C. down and remove the wedding ring on or about 8 March 2012; wrongfully communicate to M. C. a threat on or about 8 March 2012; and wrongfully use Amphetamines a schedule II controlled substance on or about 24 Oct 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and extra duty for 45 days. Developmental Counseling Form, for notification of pending legal action; notification of flagging action; and notification of possible separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 18 August 2014, reflects the applicant was granted 50 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Examination, dated 24 April 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety/depression; Adjustment D/O; PTSD - T3, being treated; Migraine/Seizure D/O. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 June 2012, 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. The applicant had been screened for mTBI by Neurology in Landstuhl but was negative for TBI. SM is currently prescribed medication for seizures and migraines. SM was screened for PTSD with the PCL-M with a score of 51 which meets criteria for being pathological. SM does have a history of being deployed to a place of imminent danger. SM currently reports having symptoms of PTSD. SM reports being tested for mTBI but the results inconclusive at this time; however, SM has been prescribed for migraines and seizures. SM is not deemed a safety risk at this time and is returned to duty with the escort. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; VA Rating Decision Letter; Judgment of Divorce. 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends requesting to be transferred to a WTU; however, was denied. If the applicant had been allowed access to receive the proper medical treatment, it could have prevented the applicant from attempting suicide three times. 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 family issues 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 being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 18 August 2014, which reflects the applicant was granted 50 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The AMHRR shows Report of Medical Examination, dated 24 April 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety/depression; Adjustment D/O; PTSD -T3, being treated; Migraine/Seizure D/O. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 June 2012, which 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. The applicant had been screened for mTBI by Neurology in Landstuhl but was negative for TBI. SM is currently prescribed medication for seizures and migraines. SM was screened for PTSD with the PCL-M with a score of 51 which meets criteria for being pathological. SM does have a history of being deployed to a place of imminent danger. SM currently reports having symptoms of PTSD. SM reports being tested for mTBI but the results inconclusive at this time; however, SM has been prescribed for migraines and seizures. SM is not deemed a safety risk at this time and is returned to duty with the escort. The MSE 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: PTSD, Depresion, and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found is service connected for PTSD and TBI and has evidence of noteworthy depression treated on Active Duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that Applicant is Service Connected for PTSD and TBI and has evidence of noteworthy depression under multiple diagnoses to include major depressive disorder diagnosed and treated on Active Duty. Applicant was also diagnosed with PTSD on active duty. The presence of such conditions mitigates some of the behaviors leading to discharge; specifically, TBI, PTSD, and depression all often result in illicit substance use in order to self-medicate symptoms of such disorders, creating a nexus between the disorders and substance misuse. PTSD and depression do not result in the inability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right and do not provide any mitigation for the assault/domestic violence incident associated with the discharge. Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence in the record to suggest applicant’s TBI history and associated residuals were of such severity as to impair judgment, cognition, and/or impulse control to the extent as to provide mitigation for the domestic assault incident. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the wrongful use of a controlled substance, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Depression, and TBI outweighed the remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – Assault – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. 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. (2) The applicant contends requesting to be transferred to a WTU; however, was denied. If the applicant had been allowed access to receive the proper medical treatment, it could have prevented the applicant from attempting suicide three times. The Board considered this contention and found there is insufficient evidence found in the record, or provided by the applicant, to substantiate that there was any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the applicant’s Command. The Board further determined that none of the applicant’s BH conditions outweigh nature and severity of the applicant’s misconduct of assault. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the misconduct of assault is not an acceptable response to dealing with family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The applicant contends being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined that none of the applicant’s BH conditions outweigh nature and severity of the applicant’s misconduct of assault as there is insufficient evidence that the applicant’s BH conditions were of such severity as to impair judgment, cognition, and/or impulse control to the extent as to provide mitigation for the misconduct. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the wrongful use of a controlled substance, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Depression, and TBI outweighed the remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – Assault. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001838 1