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, believing the decision on the discharge was based on an NCO who had harassed the applicant. The applicant now suffers from PTSD and is being actively treated. The original decision was honorable and not general (under honorable conditions). The applicant is currently being treated by two separate mental health doctors. The applicant has been homeless due to depression after being discharged. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTRs, wrongful use of marijuana, indebtedness, malingering, and failure to obey orders. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined that the RE code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 22 July 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 April 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 February 2002, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for failure to report at the appointed place of duty and three offenses of failure to maintain sufficient funds; On 14 March 2002, the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana; The applicant had been counseled on offenses of malingering, failure to obey an order, indebtedness and failure to report to the appointed place of duty; and, If these charges had been referred to a General Court-Martial, the applicant would have received a Bad-Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 May 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 14 May 2002, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 July 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 March 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / some college / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 4 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 26 February 2002, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 28 January 2002; and making and uttering checks on or about 12 October 2001, 15 November 2001, and 1 December 2001 and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds for payment of such checks. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 18 March 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between on or about 22 December 2001 and 22 January 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $552 pay; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and Oral Reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 April 2002, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds; malingering; failure to obey order or regulation; due to financial and person situations, the applicant was required to move back into the barracks; indebtedness; not being at the appointed place of duty; substandard job performance; and, failing to report. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Physical Profile, dated 15 January 2002, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Multiple conditions including hyperthyroidism, asthma, and depression. Medical Record, dated 23 January 2002, the applicant noted depression due physical health and a miscarriage. Report of Medical History, dated 1 February 2002, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Being seen by mental health today to phy problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being harassed by an NCO. The discharge was downgraded to general (under honorable conditions) because of the NCO. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The record shows on 26 April 2002, when the company commander initiated the separtion action the recommendation was for under other than honorable conditions; however, on 14 May 2002, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 23 May 2002, the brigade commander approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant be issued a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. 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 AMHRR contains a Physical Profile, dated 15 January 2002, which reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Multiple conditions including hyperthyroidism, asthma, and depression. Medical Record, dated 23 January 2002, the applicant noted depression due physical health and a miscarriage. Report of Medical History, dated 1 February 2002, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Being seen by mental health today to phy problems. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 April 2002, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being homeless after being discharged. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. 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: Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and 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 Depression, and the VA has service connected her for Bipolar Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed her with PTSD associated with an in-service trauma. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is evidence of multiple mitigating BH conditions that fully mitigate the basis for separation. Applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression, and the VA has service connected for Bipolar Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD associated with an in-service trauma. Given that Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and PTSD all have a nexus with self-medicating with substances, the applicant's use of marijuana is mitigated. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, the applicant's FTR is mitigated. Given that a symptom of Bipolar Disorder can be excessive spending, applicant's Bipolar Disorder may have contributed to failure to maintain sufficient funds, so this misconduct is also mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTRs, wrongful use of marijuana, indebtedness, malingering, and failure to obey orders - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends being harassed by an NCO. The discharge was downgraded to general (under honorable conditions) because of the NCO. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention, and accordingly voted to upgrade the discharge because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends being homeless after being discharged. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTRs, wrongful use of marijuana, indebtedness, malingering, and failure to obey orders. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Depression, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTRs, wrongful use of marijuana, indebtedness, malingering, and failure to obey orders. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210001884 1