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 harsh and may have avoided this predicament if the problem had been identified and sought assistance. The applicant was unaware of being profoundly depressed until after receiving help. The applicant is unable to fully defend or justify the behavior but admits to making a serious mistake and willfully owns up to the actions. The applicant was extremely stressed and was too proud to acknowledge having a problem. The applicant had multiple back-to-back deaths of close family members and is still struggling to get over the losses. When the family was involved in an automobile accident on September 11, 2015, the applicant’s ability to manage events affecting the family, employment, and life itself reached its breaking point. All the applicant wanted to do was visit the family because the prospect of losing them in the accident overcame all other feelings. The applicant had the opportunity to respond more effectively, but the emotions overrode the judgment. The applicant painfully regrets making an irrational decision and having to suffer the consequences. The applicant cannot fulfill a healthy or positive life if restricted from receiving assistance, disability, or educational benefits, for example. The applicant believes having to honestly and bravely earned the benefits during the military service, despite the mistakes made. Without the benefits or the privileged title of “Veteran,” the applicant is unable to sustain a healthy life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 4 November 2015, the following charges were preferred against the applicant: Charge I: Violation pf Article 86, UCMJ, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 4 November 2015. Charge II: Violation of Article 90, UCMJ, on 15 September 2015: Specification 1: disobeyed 1LT D. W. by not providing a urine specimen of 30 ml or more. Specification 2: disobeyed 1LT D. W. by leaving the urinalysis holding area when ordered not to leave. Charge III: Violation of Article 91, UCMJ, for being disrespectful in deportment toward 1SG J. P., by turning the back and walking away from the 1SG on 15 September 2015. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 8 December 2015 (NIF) (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 December 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 January 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / two-year college / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A20, Automated Logistical Specialist / 4 years, 2 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 October 2011 – 14 January 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 12 March 2015, reflects the applicant exceeded the course standards with demonstrated superior abilities in the Warrior Leader Course, and graduated with placement on the Commandant’s List. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 4 June 2015, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 28 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 26 May 2015. FG Article 15, dated 9 July 2015, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 27 April and 26 May 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and five third-party letters. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635- 200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the discharge was harsh and may have avoided this predicament if the problem had been identified and had sought assistance. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends coping with multiple back-to-back deaths of close family members, the family becoming involved in an automobile accident, and the ability to manage events affecting the family, employment, and life itself having reached its breaking point resulted in being discharged. 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 profoundly depressed, stressed, and coping with the losses of family members led to the discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of any behavioral health diagnosis. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the current discharge prevents receiving assistance, disability, or educational benefits. Eligibility for veterans’ benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s character and excellent performance. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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: Major Depressive Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder. (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 and Major Depressive Disorder. The VA has also service connected the applicant for Major Depressive Disorder. (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 has BH conditions that provide partial mitigation for the basis of separation. Applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. The VA has also service connected the applicant for Major Depressive Disorder. Given the nexus between Major Depressive Disorder, decreased motivation, and avoidance, applicant’s MDD mitigates the FTR. None of the remaining misconduct that led to applicant’s discharge is mitigated. There is no natural sequela between MDD or an Adjustment Disorder and disrespect. Additionally, the acts of not providing a urine specimen or following an order to leave the UA holding are not mitigated by either of applicant’s BH conditions since neither MDD or an Adjustment Disorder 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, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s MDD mitigates the FTR; however, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – not providing urine sample, leaving UA holding area without authorization, and disrespect to a senior NCO – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was harsh and may have avoided this predicament if the problem had been identified and had sought assistance. The Board considered this contention and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. (2) The applicant contends coping with multiple back-to-back deaths of close family members and the subsequent stress, the family becoming involved in an automobile accident, and the ability to manage events affecting the family, employment, and life itself having reached its breaking point resulted in being discharged. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with a broad range of personal 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 nature and severity of the applicant’s unmitigated basis for separation is not an acceptable response to dealing with the applicant’s stated issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged (3) The applicant contends being profoundly depressed, stressed, and coping with the losses of family members led to the discharge. The Board determined that while the applicant’s MDD mitigates the FTR; however, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – not providing urine sample, leaving UA holding area without authorization, and disrespect to a senior NCO – for the aforementioned reasons. (4) The applicant contends the current discharge prevents receiving assistance, disability, or educational benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 MDD mitigates the FTR, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – not providing urine sample, leaving UA holding area without authorization, and disrespect to a senior NCO. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken in separating the applicant with a General Discharge. 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 AR20210001846 1