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, a desire to have a long term devotion to the Army. The applicant apologizes for rushing things. The applicant and the applicant's spouse could really use the support of educational benefits. The applicant provided documents reflecting the applicant is 100 percent disabled because of the Army service during deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2008. The applicant was rated disabled because of psychosis, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and lower back pain. The applicant requests a medical or an honorable discharge. The upgrade would allow the applicant to live in the local veterans home and to be buried at the Veterans Affairs Cemetery in Washington State. The applicant apologizes for not giving 100 percent during the applicant's Army career. The applicant had high hopes of serving for 40 years and 10 deployments. The applicant's dream was to attend airborne, ranger, and special forces training and become the Command Sergeant Major of the Army National Guard. It kills the applicant to have had only one deployment and two years of active duty service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's schizoaffective disorder mitigating applicant's FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it based on applicant's BH diagnoses. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 March 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The Acknowledgment is undated. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 December 2008 and 10 January 2009, without authority, the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty; On 1 January 2009, the applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful command from Major S. S. to get out of civilian clothes; and On 11 January 2009, the applicant, willfully disobeyed a lawful order from First Sergeant (1SG) B. T. to "get out of civilian clothes and get back into uniform," and another lawful order from Sergeant First Class (SFC) D. S. "to get up, put on the uniform, and grab your weapon." (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 February 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 March 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 August 2008 / Not to Exceed 398 days b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 2 years, 4 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 13 October 2006 - 17 August 2008 / NA IADT, 7 November 2006 - 20 June 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (2 October 2008 - 8 March 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, AFRM-MD g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 19 November 2008, reflects the investigation officer found the applicant: The applicant was trained to First Army standards and believed the applicant knew how to operate the weapon system when the applicant was insufficiently trained to do so. The unit failed to ensure the applicant was properly trained to operate the weapon system. The negligent discharge was the direct result of the applicant's insufficient training on the weapon system. No acts or events which constituted violations of law, regulation, or policy were identified. The Investing Officer recommended counseling and training for the applicant and a 100 percent review of all personnel assigned crew-served weapons to ensure all are trained and remedial training if deficiencies are found. Summarized Article 15, dated 1 December 2008, did in Iraq, through negligence, discharge a 240B at the North Entry Control Point (10 November 2008). The punishment consisted of a restriction for 7 days (suspended). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 January 2009, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 1 December 2008, was vacated for: Article 91, at or near COB Q W-West, Iraq, on 27 December 2008, were disrespectful in language and deportment toward Captain H., a commissioned officer, by failing to render a salute and responding to a uniform correction by saying, "Yeah I know." Company Grade Article 15, dated 9 January 2009, did in Iraq, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (26 December 2008). The document is void of the punishment imposed and the date the punishment was imposed. Article 15 - Reconciliation Log, undated, reflects punishment reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $933 was imposed on 26 January 2009. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 26 January 2009. The applicant was charged with five specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, Failure to report: On 26 December 2008; guilty consistent with the plea; and On 10 January 2009; guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 90, Disobey a lawful command from an officer on 11 January 2009: guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 91, Disobey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on two occasions on 11 January 2009; guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Forfeiture $933 pay and confinement for 30 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Confinement," effective date 26 January 2009; and From "Confinement" to "PDY," effective date 19 February 2009. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for lack of discipline, failed to report, and failed to render proper courtesy. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 24 days (Confinement, 26 January 2009 - 18 February 2009) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits letter, dated 30 January 2021, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected disabled. The letter does not provide the rated condition(s). (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Health Evaluation, dated 18 February 2009, reflects the applicant was evaluated while incarcerated because of post-trial confinement. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, acute; antisocial personality disorder traits; and problems related to interaction with the legal system. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and VA letter. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted a service-connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty, specifically, psychosis, TBI, and lower back pain. The applicant provided a VA letter indicating the applicant was rated at 100 percent service-connected disabled, but the letter did not reveal the medical conditions. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation (MHE) on 18 February 2009, which indicates the applicant was fit for duty and should be referred for individual therapy. The applicant should be returned to the parent command where a final decision would be made regarding the applicant's military career. The MHE reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, acute; antisocial personality disorder traits; and problems related to interaction with the legal system. The MHE was considered by the separation authority. The AMHRR if void of a mental status evaluation. 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 contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's 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 requests a medical discharge. The applicant's request 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. 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: Schizoaffective Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD and TBI, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant is service connected for schizoaffective disorder, manifested evidence of psychosis on active duty, and has asserted presence of TBI and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is service connected for schizoaffective disorder and in applicant's application they also asserted TBI and PTSD although the evaluator did not locate any evidence for the latter 2 conditions. The applicant's record demonstrates evidence of emerging and worsening psychotic symptoms (ultimately service connected as schizoaffective disorder) while on active duty to include during applicant's tour in Iraq; such a condition would mitigate the behaviors associate with basis of separation which include failure to report to place of duty and disregarding orders (primarily associated with clothing and uniform, per records). It is reasonable to presume that applicant's failure to comply with such directives was associated with applicant's emerging psychiatric disorder and a nexus existed between applicant's misconduct and psychiatric status. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Schizoaffective Disorder outweighed the FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to Schizoaffective Disorder mitigating the applicant's FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors. (2) The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted a service- connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty, specifically, psychosis, TBI, and lower back pain. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Schizoaffective Disorder outweighed the FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and veterans 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. (4) The applicant requests a medical discharge. 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's schizoaffective disorder mitigating applicant's FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it based on applicant's BH diagnoses. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's schizoaffective disorder mitigated the applicant's misconduct of FTR and disobeying multiple lawful orders from superiors. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board voted not to change the RE code, as the applicant's BH conditions warrant review for reentry to military service. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210001969 1