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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, it was incredibly stressful and emotionally taxing for the applicant because of the environment and conditions within and outside the unit. The applicant was harassed on a regular basis by the squad leader at the first duty station for anything and everything. Nobody else was ever abused by the squad leader. Aside from the daily harassments, the applicant was involved in an attempted sexual assault, which was immediately reported to the MPs. The applicant was then verbally abused by the peers, with name calling. When the applicant was transferred to Fort Stewart, the same thing occurred. The squad leader would leave the applicant in a push-up posture, making inappropriate contacts and remarks on multiple occasions. The squad leader also entered the solely occupied room unannounced with no female Soldiers present and accused the applicant of drug use. The room was destroyed when it was searched for drugs, and before leaving the barracks room, the squad leader made an inappropriate comment to the applicant. The applicant was accused of reporting to formations while intoxicated. The breathalyzer results were zero when taken to the MPs. When on a medical leave for 14 days, the applicant was reported AWOL. The applicant being constantly harassed, was eventually transferred to another squad. The applicant turned to alcohol to cope. The behavior changed, the work performance suffered, and the applicant felt disengaged. The applicant felt upset and afraid, and wanted to be free of what was going on. The applicant was sent to Fort Gordon for a 30-day in-house program and was enrolled in ADAPCP. The chain of command overlooked what was really going on and focused solely on the drinking. The harassments persisted to the end. The applicant was involved in an unwanted sexual contact, again, but did not report it, in fear of further harassments, threats, and more "enemies." When the applicant informed the unit commander about what was going on in the unit, the applicant was sent to mental health. Nothing changed, and when a discharge option became available, the applicant accepted it. The applicant had no intention of enduring another year of harassment, let alone surviving it. So much more has transpired since, and the applicant is forever a changed person. The applicant does not recognize who oneself is as a person. The applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and is now undergoing treatment through counseling. The applicant would have become the Soldier for whom the applicant enlisted for if not for the high stress and emotionally trying circumstances. The applicant requests to reinstate the educational benefits as agreed upon in the enlistment contract, and the DD Form 214 to reflect an honorable service. The applicant prefers not to drink anymore, and it has never been an issue. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 June 2023, and by a 5- 0 vote, the Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and experiencing MST outweigh the assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board voted and determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable due to applicant's PTSD diagnosis and experiencing MST warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. 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 / AR 635-200, Chapter 14- 12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 21 June 2001 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 May 2001 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 October 2000, the applicant received a FG Article 15 for assaulting another Soldier, missing formations on divers occasions, losing military property, and failing to obey a lawful order. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 May 2001 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 May 2001 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 July 1998 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 62B10, Construction Equipment Repairer / 2 years, 10 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Thirteen Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 28 July 2000, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 19 June 2000 and violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully traveling outside the 200-mile radius without a mileage pass. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $263 pay (the amount of more than $100 was suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 21 August 2000, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 28 July 2000, was vacated for Article 86, UCMJ, failure to repair on 2 August 2000. Summarized Article 15, dated 13 October 2000, for being AWOL and failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 30 October 2000, for disobeying a lawful order to not consume alcohol on 13 August 2000; assaulting PV2 D. G. J. by kicking the thigh and groin area on 13 August 2000; and purchasing or possessing an alcoholic beverage while underage on 13 August 2000. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $250 pay per month for one month (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Efforts (memo), dated 19 March 2001, reflects the applicant's rehabilitation team met on 19 March 2001, and determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in AR 600-85, paragraph 3-2 and 3-3. Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified considering the applicant's lack of progress by failing to comply with the plans and goals of the treatment program and continuing to consume alcoholic beverages while enrolled. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 March 2001, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant presented clear mental status and no evidence of any psychiatric disorder. CID Military Report, dated 4 October 2016, rendered by the Army Criminal Investigation Command, in response to a request for an investigative report(s) on the applicant, provided a Military Police Report, dated 28 August 2000, which reflects the applicant was apprehended for an assault. An Ex Parte letter sent to the applicant on 12 October 2016, provided no response. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Mariposa Women & Family Center letter, dated 20 October 2015, reflects verification of the applicant participating in counseling services by group and individual therapy sessions between 9 January 2010 to 2 April 2015. VA Problem List, dated 25 September 2015, reflects the applicant being treated for a health problem, "PTSD, Chronic." (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and listed attachments. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 harassment by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends having to consume alcohol to cope with the constant harassment. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of an in-service "Alcohol Dependent," and a referral to the Community ADAPCP and enrollment in the outpatient program. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 22 March 2001, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being assaulted twice and reported the first incident, an attempted sexual assault, to the MPs but did not report the second incident, a sexual assault, for fear of further harassments, threats, and more enemies. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentary evidence of the report on the attempted sexual assault incident. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnosis and treatment for "PTSD, Chronic." The MSE in the applicant's AMHRR does not indicate any diagnosis, but a medical evaluation on 14 September 2000 indicated a diagnosis of "Alcohol Dependent," as reported by the Clinical Director of the Alcohol & Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Program (ADAPCP). The applicant contends the educational benefits agreed to in the enlistment contract should be reinstated. Eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 applicant contends the honorable service should be reflected on the DD Form 214. 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: PTSD. Additionally, the applicant asserts MST, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant is service connected for PTSD and has asserted the presence of MST while in the military. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is 70% SC for PTSD and has asserted the experience of sexual harassment/sexual assault (MST) while in the military, which is supported by reports in contemporary medical records. Applicant's current basis of separation is in essence associated with missing formation on diverse occasions, losing military property (appears to be ID card), and failing to obey a lawful order (not to drink alcohol). The presence of PTSD and compelling history for MST results in mitigation of the bases of separation: PTSD due to sexual assault/harassment is associated with avoidance behaviors such as FTR; substance misuse (to include failure to obey order not to drink) is often the result of self-medication of symptoms commonly associated with the natural history of PTSD/residuals of harassment; and loss of property can also be attributed to PTSD, which is associated with poor focus and concentration/distractibility, and at times preoccupation with trauma-related stressors. These circumstances would not mitigate the offense of being outside mileage radius without a pass, which was associated with one instance of FTR although not a formal basis of separation. Although applicant currently has an honorable discharge, the compelling evidence for MST/PTSD mitigating discharge supports re-consideration of narrative reason for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD and MST outweighed the assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends harassment by members of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD and MST fully outweighing the applicant's assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends having to consume alcohol to cope with the constant harassment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD and MST fully outweighing the applicant's assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends being assaulted twice and reported the first incident, an attempted sexual assault, to the MPs but did not report the second incident, a sexual assault, for fear of further harassments, threats, and more enemies. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD and MST fully outweighing the applicant's assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. Ultimately, the Board voted to change the narrative reason based on the applicant's PTSD and MST fully outweighing the applicant's assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends the educational benefits agreed to in the enlistment contract should be reinstated. 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. (6) The applicant contends the honorable service should be reflected on the DD Form 214. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record and determined the applicant has an Honorable characterization of service. c. The Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is inequitable based on the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and experiencing MST outweigh the assault, multiple FTRs, losing military property, and failure to obey a lawful order basis for separation. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board voted and determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable due to applicant's PTSD diagnosis and experiencing MST warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a Character of Honorable, therefore no further relief is available. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board voted and determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable due to applicant's PTSD diagnosis and experiencing MST warranting consideration prior to reentry of military service. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210001858 1