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 unjust since it was observed 
Soldiers at Fort Sill and Fort Lee, who have committed serious offenses and used drugs 
received honorable discharges, and because of suffering a back injury during basic training 
made it challenging to perform the assigned duties. Although the pattern of misconduct was 
unfair, some of the cited reasons, such as failing to shave on a few occasions and arriving late 
for muster, were justified. The applicant received many warnings for failing to clean the room 
daily, but the roommates, who hardly ever helped, received no repercussions. There were 
justified reasons for failing to follow directions after a land navigation, being late to a muster 
formation, failing an APFT, and disobeying and being disrespectful. The applicant enlisted at a 
young age. Despite having constant pain, the applicant’s request for a medical discharge was 
denied because the 10-degree spinal curvature was not severe enough. The applicant was 
unable to maintain the cleanliness of the barracks room and meet the physical requirements of 
the MOS. Finding work, obtaining medical insurance, and moving on with life are difficult 
because of the current discharge. The applicant further details the contentions in the application.

   b.	Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 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 October 2015

   c.	Separation Facts: 

       (1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 September 2015

       (2)	Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: 

Between 26 August 2014 and 4 August 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order on 
numerous occasions.

Between 7 February and 3 August 2015, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of 
duty on numerous occasions.

On 3 February 2015, the applicant made a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer.

       (3)	Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) 

       (4)	Legal Consultation Date: On 18 September 2015, the applicant waived legal 
counsel. 

       (5)	Administrative Separation Board: NA 

       (6)	Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 September 2025 / General 
(Under Honorable Conditions) 

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

   a.	Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2013 / 5 years 

   b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 100

   c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 1 year, 10 months, 21 
days

   d.	Prior Service / Characterizations: None 

   e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service: None

   f.	Awards and Decorations: None

   g.	Performance Ratings: NA

   h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Sixteen Developmental Counseling 
Forms for substandard barracks room; failing an APFT; UCMJ action; failing to follow directions, 
comply with counseling, and complete corrective training; failing to go to the appointed place of 
duty at the time prescribed; and being disrespectful.

Medical Record reflects on 31 January 2014, the applicant was examined and treated for back 
and right calf pain and was provided a consult for physical therapy.

Summarized Article 15, dated 16 September 2014, for dereliction of duty by failing to maintain 
the barracks room according to the Barracks Room SOP on 26, 28 August, and 2 September 
2014. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. 

Report of Medical Examination, undated, the examining medical physician noted in the 
summary of defects and diagnoses: back pain, scoliosis, and temporary profile. 

Commander’s Report, dated 21 September 2015, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, 
dated 18 March 2015, for three violations of Article 86, UCMJ and one violation of Article 107, 
UCMJ. The Report did not reflect the imposed punishment, but indicates the applicant was 
reduced to E-2 on 18 March 2015. 

Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) with an illegible date, the legible portion of the MSE 
reflects the applicant had been screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. 

   i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return: None

   j.	Behavioral Health Condition(s): 

       (1)	Applicant provided: Medical Records, dated 31 January 2014 through July 2015, 
indicate the applicant was examined and treated for a history of primarily back pain and a history 
an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, and depression, starting 15 April 2014. 
The applicant asserts PTSD on the applicant’s 293 dated 24 June 2021.

       (2)	AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 29 July 2015, the applicant noted 
behavioral health issues and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: 
Depressive disorder. 

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and medical records. Additional 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 the discharge was unjust because other Soldiers who committed 
serious offenses and used drugs received honorable discharges. Applicable regulations state 
each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and 
circumstances of the case. 

The applicant contends the pattern of misconduct was unfair because some of the cited reasons 
were justified and suffering a back injury during basic training made it challenging to perform the 
assigned duties. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of 
arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.

The applicant contends having enlisted at a young age. The AMHRR shows the applicant met 
entrance qualification standards to include age.

The applicant contends despite having constant pain, the applicant’s request for a medical 
discharge was denied because the 10-degree spinal curvature was not severe enough. Army 
Regulation 635-200 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 being unable to maintain the cleanliness of the barracks room and meet 
the physical requirements of the MOS because of the challenges of a back injury and constant 
pain. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation, which supports being treated for an in-
service back injury 

The applicant contends currents discharge makes finding work difficult and an upgrade will 
allow the applicant to obtain employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment 
or enhance employment opportunities.

The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans’ benefits, specifically, 
health 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 applicant claims PTSD issue is related to the request for an upgrade. The applicant did not 
submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The 
applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation, which supports a diagnosis of a depressive 
disorder, and the applicant provided medical records that reflect health issues of an adjustment 
disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, and depression; however, there is no documentary 
evidence reflecting diagnosis of PTSD. 

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: (Chronic) 
Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and asserted PTSD.

       (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 Depression. The VA has also service-connected applicant for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. 
The also asserts PTSD.

       (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 Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Depression mitigate the applicant’s offenses of 
failure to obey an order (failing to maintain barracks to standard) and FTRs given the nexus 
between these offenses and symptoms of decreased motivation and avoidances associated 
with Chronic Adjustment Disorder/Depression.  However, none of the applicant’s behavioral 
health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses - making a false official statement, failure to 
obey orders (not shaving, wearing the improper uniform, failing to carry a required item, failing 
to secure personal/military property) and disrespecting an NCO – as there is no natural sequela 
between the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and these offenses.  Finally, applicant 
asserted PTSD at the time of military service, but there is no medical documentation in the 
applicant’s record or provided by the applicant to support applicant’s asserted diagnosis of 
PTSD. Therefore, applicant’s asserted PTSD does not provide mitigation for any of his 
misconduct.

       (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 Chronic Adjustment Disorder/Depression mitigate the 
applicant’s FTRs and failure to maintain barracks to standard; however, the applicant’s Chronic 
Adjustment Disorder/Depression or asserted PTSD do not outweigh the applicant’s medically 
unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – making a false official statement, not shaving, 
wearing the improper uniform, failing to carry a required item, failing to secure personal/military 
property and disrespecting an NCO.

?
   b.	Response to Contention(s): 

       (1)	The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because other Soldiers who 
committed serious offenses and used drugs received honorable discharges. The Board 
considered this contention and determined that the applicant neither cited comparable cases, 
nor provided sufficient evidence of any unfair treatment by the separation authority. Ultimately, 
the Board found that the assertion alone did not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for 
separation – making a false official statement, not shaving, wearing the improper uniform, failing 
to carry a required item, failing to secure personal/military property and disrespecting an NCO. 

       (2)	The applicant contends the pattern of misconduct was unfair because some of the 
cited reasons were justified and suffering a back injury during basic training made it challenging 
to perform the assigned duties. The Board considered this contention and determined there was 
insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority, and 
the that the applicant’s assertion does not outweigh the unmitigated basis for separation – 
making a false official statement, not shaving, wearing the improper uniform, failing to carry a 
required item, failing to secure personal/military property and disrespecting an NCO.

       (3)	The applicant contends having enlisted at a young age. The Board considered this 
contention and determined that the applicant’s youth did not outweigh the misconduct or the 
appropriateness of the discharge. The Board also determined that there is insufficient evidence 
in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the separation authority acted 
in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  Therefore, no change is warranted

       (4)	The applicant contends despite having constant pain, the applicant’s request for a 
medical discharge was denied because the 10-degree spinal curvature was not severe enough. 
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.

       (5)	The applicant contends being unable to maintain the cleanliness of the barracks 
room and meet the physical requirements of the MOS, because of the challenges of a back 
injury and the constant pain. The Board considered this contention and determined there was 
insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority, and 
that the applicant’s assertion does not outweigh the unmitigated basis for separation – failure to 
obey lawful orders (not shaving, wearing the improper uniform, failing to carry a required item, 
failing to secure personal/military property) and making false official statement to an NCO.

       (6)	The applicant contends currents discharge makes is difficult finding work and an 
upgrade will allow the applicant to obtain employment. The Board considered this contention but 
does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities.

       (7)	The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans’ benefits, 
specifically, health 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.

       (8)	The applicant claims PTSD issue is related to the request for an upgrade. The Board 
liberally considered this contention and determined that there is no medical documentation to 
support applicant’s asserted diagnosis of PTSD. Therefore, applicant’s asserted PTSD does not 
provide mitigation for any of the applicant’s 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 Chronic Adjustment Disorder and Depression mitigate the applicant’s FTRs 
and failure to maintain barracks to standard, the available evidence did not support a conclusion 
that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Depression outweighed the applicant’s unmitigated 
basis for applicant’s separation – making a false official statement, not shaving, wearing the 
improper uniform, failing to carry a required item, failing to secure personal/military property and 
disrespecting an NCO. The Board further determined that there is no medical documentation to 
support applicant’s asserted diagnosis of PTSD. The Board also considered the applicant’s 
contentions of inequity and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or 
capricious action taken by the separation authority. The Board did not consider any issues of 
propriety as the applicant did not submit any propriety issues.  The discharge was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of 
the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 
Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s 
misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable 
Discharge. 

       (2)	The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or 
accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was 
discharged was both proper and equitable.

       (3)	The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the regulation.

?
10.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order:  No 

	b.	Change Characterization to:   No Change

	c.	Change Reason / SPD Code to:  No Change

	d.	Change RE Code to:  No Change 

	e.	Change Authority to:  No Change

Authenticating Official:
 
Legend:


AWOL – Absent Without Leave
AMHRR – Army Military Human 
Resource Record
BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge
BH – Behavioral Health
CG – Company Grade Article 15
CID – Criminal Investigation 
Division
ELS – Entry Level Status
FG – Field Grade Article 15
GD – General Discharge 
HS – High School 
HD – Honorable Discharge
IADT – Initial Active Duty Training
MP – Military Police
MST – Military Sexual Trauma
N/A – Not applicable
NCO – Noncommissioned Officer
NIF – Not in File
NOS – Not Otherwise Specified
OAD – Ordered to Active Duty
OBH (I) – Other Behavioral 
Health (Issues)
OMPF – Official Military 
Personnel File
PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder
RE – Re-entry
SCM – Summary Court Martial
SPCM – Special Court Martial 
SPD – Separation Program 
Designator 
TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury
UNC – Uncharacterized 
Discharge
UOTHC – Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions
VA – Department of Veterans 
Affairs



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
AR20210001872
1