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, being given two Article 15s but, according to the applicant, was never given a fair opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner, consistently counseled on improvements or shortcomings, or given a chance to change units for a fresh start. The applicant believes the command documented all the negative aspects of the applicant’s character and actions because of the DUI. The applicant believes should not have to forfeit benefits due to the leadership’s failure to support the applicant in becoming a better Soldier. The applicant looks forward to starting college and being able to receive GI Bill benefits. Once the applicant has completed a bachelor's degree, the applicant would like the opportunity to once again to join the armed forces as an officer and be able to serve honorably. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 May 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: 20 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 March 2014, the applicant controlled a vehicle while drunk. On 28 March 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order given by CPT F., not to leave the 4th Squadron Headquarters without an NCO escort. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 15 June 2009, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The Separation Authority found the Soldier’s physical condition as not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative elimination, the circumstances in the Soldier’s case do not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings should continue. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2013 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19D10, R4 Cavalry Scout / 2 years, 8 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 30 March 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunk Driving (on post). The Commander’s Report, dated 9 June 2015, reflects on 21 May 2014, the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, for driving a vehicle while intoxicated. The punishment was reduction to Private (E1); forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction for 45 days. On 30 April 2015, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to be at appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order. The punishment was reduction to Private (E1), (suspended); forfeiture of $360 pay, (suspended); 14 days extra duty; 14 days restriction and oral reprimand. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 10 June 2014, reflects on 30 March 2014, at a traffic control point (Gate 1) in Rose Barracks. Germany, Military Police asked the applicant to exit the vehicle so they could conduct a safety equipment check. When Military Police made contact with the applicant, they smelled alcohol. The applicant was transported to the Rose Barracks Military police Station and administered a breath alcohol test which resulted in a reading of 0.146 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 8 April 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety and, depression. Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 April 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety attack; ASAP. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 April 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant has been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Alcohol Dependence and Abuse. Prohibit the use of alcohol as alcohol is a CNS depressant and may impair inhibitions and judgment, the service member may participate in PT as allowed by physical profile, as exercise often improves mood. The service member has been screened for substance use disorders (e.g., alcohol and drugs). The service member has a documented history of alcohol abuse and dependence, as well as a known pattern of abusing other substances. The applicant has previously been treated for Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and for Substance Abuse. Neither of these conditions can be considered to have impaired or removed the applicant’s ability to make sound decisions or interfered with perception of reality. The applicant has always retained full control and responsibility for own actions. The applicant has been screened for Behavioral Health issues and concerns, and medical record has been reviewed. The applicant has also been screened for sexual victimization and substance abuse. This review and screening found no significant episode, disorder or condition which would prevent the applicant from participating in any disciplinary/chapter actions deemed appropriate by command. The applicant is cleared for chapter action at this time. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. Delete if NA. 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. Delete if NA. 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. Delete if NA. 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 being given two Article 15s but, was never given a fair opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner, consistently counseled on improvements or shortcomings, or given a chance to change units for a fresh start. The applicant believes the command documented all the negative aspects of the applicant’s character and actions because of the DUI. The applicant believes his benefits should not be forfeited because of the leadership’s failure to support the applicant in becoming a better Soldier. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The AMHRR reflects, a Report of Medical History, dated 8 April 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety and, depression. A Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 April 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety attack; ASAP. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 April 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Alcohol Dependence and Abuse. The MSE and related documents were considered by the separation authority. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder while on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has evidence of one potentially mitigating condition, Adjustment Disorder. However, available active service medical records indicate this Adjustment Disorder does not rise to the level of severity as to mitigate either DUI or failure to obey a lawful order and/or create a nexus between applicant’s psychological functioning and these offenses. Further, available records suggest the adjustment disorder was in substantial part a consequence of applicant’s disciplinary history to include DUI. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUI on post and disobeying an order – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends given two Article 15s but, according to the applicant, was never given a fair opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner, consistently counseled on improvements or shortcomings, or given a chance to change units for a fresh start. The applicant believes the command documented all the negative aspects of the applicant’s character and actions because of the DUI. The Board considered this contention and noted that the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by command. Thus, the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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. (3) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. 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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUI on post and disobeying an order. 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 (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable. (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 AR20210001938 1