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, due to PTSD and mental instability should have been medically discharged. The VA ordered the applicant not to be placed in live fire situations to which the command continuously put the applicant in live fire exercises causing the applicant to have increased mental instability and suicidal tendencies. The increased instability led to the applicant not being able to perform the duties and led to the applicant coping with the use of alcohol as no medical help was given to the applicant. After the applicant’s mental stability decreased the applicant’s marriage failed because the commander did not allow the applicant to contact the spouse to try and fix the marriage. Threats were made for not following a direct order to no longer contact the spouse as the commander was contacting the spouse for more ways to get spousal support. The state of Washington dropped the no contact order, and the commander did not abide which led to the discharge. Since being discharged from the military, the applicant has been granted 100 percent service- connection for PTSD and tinnitus. The applicant has completed the Residential Rehab Treatment Program offered by the VA and the PTSD Track. The applicant has completed three semesters of college and joined the Student Veteran Organization to help create a better atmosphere for Veterans attending school all while maintaining sobriety. The applicant has also received an award from Disabled American Veterans and volunteers their time at the VA and American Legion helping disabled Veterans with whatever they may need. The applicant also donates their time to helping operate a holiday function for kids. The applicant also requests the rank of E-4 be reinstated. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 15 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disobeyed CPT J. S. by contacting N. B. on or about 23 September 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 September 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 6 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 9 September 2008 – 22 September 2008 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (12 September 2009 – 24 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Municipal Court State of Washington Court document, dated 6 June 2011, reflects a no contact order was issued against the applicant from coming within 500 feet of the protected person known as the applicant’s spouse. Memorandum, dated 6 June 2011, reflects the applicant was issued a military no-contact order concerning domestic assault. The applicant was directed to remain 1000 feet from the spouse at all times. Two Personnel Action Forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA)” effective 6 June 2011; and, From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 8 June 2011. CG Article 15, dated 27 February 2012, for willfully disobeying a lawful command from CPT J. S. on or about 23 September 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, suspended; extra duty for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, emergency command directed evaluation, dated 29 February 2012, 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. It was noted: Service Member stated they made comment about shooting oneself while distressed, the applicant would not harm oneself and has reasons for living. The applicant is not considering killing or harming another person. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 5 March 2012, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 27 February 2012, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for recommendation for lifting of company grade article 15 suspension; recommendation for military separation; attempted suicide/suicide threat incident; precautionary measures take based upon MSE; failure to pay Star Card bill; violation of no contact order; being forced to move out of Government housing; No contact order; and awareness of marriage issues. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 days (CCA, 6 June 2011 – 7 June 2011) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Progress Notes, dated 23 December 2011, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse. VA Rating decision, dated 6 August 2013, reflects the applicant was granted 100 percent service-connected for PTSD (claimed as depression anxiety and PTSD). (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 October 2011, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions. It was noted: Soldier completed a risk assessment on 4 January 2012. While the Soldier denied experiencing any current suicidal or homicidal ideations with intent and plan, it is this provider’s opinion the Soldier is at risk for engaging in these behaviors when having to deal with stressful situation (e.g. financial stress, martial stress, unit stress, difficult interactions with chain of command). Recommend Command adhere to the duty limitations in the above evaluations as well as support Soldier in seeking Behavioral Health treatment. Command is encouraged to pursue a risk assessment and/or emergency command Directed Evaluation if it is believed the Soldier’s condition is deteriorating or if the Soldier expresses suicidal and/or homicidal ideations. Command is also encouraged to conduct regular checks to determine whether Soldier requires an increased level of supervision. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two third-party letters; partial separation packet; five certificates; ARBA letter; VA Progress Notes. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has completed the Residential Rehab Treatment Program offered by the VA and the PTSD Track Program; completed three semesters of college; and joined the student Veteran Organization to help create a better atmosphere for Veterans attending school all while maintaining sobriety. 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends the marriage failed due to the commander not allowing the applicant to contact the spouse. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The AMHRR contains Municipal Court State of Washington Court document, dated 6 June 2011, which reflects a no contact order was issued against the applicant from coming within 500 feet of the protected person known as the applicant’s spouse. Memorandum, dated 6 June 2011, reflects the applicant was issued a military no-contact order concerning domestic assault. The applicant was directed to remain 1000 feet from the spouse at all times. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, 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 suffering from PTSD and used alcohol to cope with the PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of Progress Notes, dated 23 December 2011, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse. VA Rating decision, dated 6 August 2013, reflects the applicant was granted 100 percent service-connection for PTSD (claimed as depression anxiety and PTSD). The AMHRR contains Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 October 2011, which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions. It was noted: Soldier completed a risk assessment on 4 January 2012. While the Soldier denied experiencing any current suicidal or homicidal ideations with intent and plan, it is this provider’s opinion the Soldier is at risk for engaging in these behaviors when having to deal with stressful situation (e.g. financial stress, martial stress, unit stress, difficult interactions with chain of command). Recommend Command adhere to the duty limitations in the above evaluations as well as support Soldier in seeking Behavioral Health treatment. Command is encouraged to pursue a risk assessment and/or emergency command Directed Evaluation if it is believed the Soldier’s condition is deteriorating or if the Soldier expresses suicidal and/or homicidal ideations. Command is also encouraged to conduct regular checks to determine whether Soldier requires an increased level of supervision. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant requests the rank of E-4 be reinstated. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The third-party statements provided with the application are from two healthcare providers which reference the applicant’s progress from medication and treatment. The applicant has completed the Residential Rehab Treatment Program offered by the VA as well as the PTSD Track Program; completed three semesters of college; and joined the student Veteran Organization to help create a better atmosphere for Veterans attending school all while maintaining sobriety. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while on Active Duty and is service connected for same. (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 a documented history of PTSD through both treatment while in active service and VA service connection. The advisor opines that PTSD does not mitigate disobeying a no-contact order which is noted as the basis of separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason, and it was determined PTSD did not mitigate disobeying a no-contact order, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. (2) The applicant contends the marriage failed due to the commander not allowing the applicant to contact the spouse. 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. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (3) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons and requests the rank of E-4 be reinstated. 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. (4) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and used alcohol to cope with the PTSD. The current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason, and it was determined PTSD did not mitigate disobeying a no-contact order, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. (5) The applicant has completed the Residential Rehab Treatment Program offered by the VA and the PTSD Track Program; completed three semesters of college; and joined the student Veteran Organization to help create a better atmosphere for Veterans attending school all while maintaining sobriety. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s completion of a Residential Rehab Treatment Program offered by the VA, the PTSD Track Program, three semesters of college, and joined the student Veteran Organization does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of disobeying a no-contact order. However, applicant’s current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. 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 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 not to change the narrative reason for discharge, as the current narrative reason and accompanying SPD code are proper and equitable. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD does not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (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 AR20210001947 1