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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, enlisting in 1998, and the first and only duty station was Fort Stewart. While the applicant excelled as a Soldier, the applicant’s family life had taken a bad turn. When the applicant joined the Army, the applicant was accused of abandoning the family. The applicant’s child’s other parent would not let the applicant see the child when the applicant came home from Fort Stewart, although the applicant’s parents would keep the child on the weekends. The applicant became depressed and began drinking and acting recklessly. The applicant reenlisted to be assigned to Fort Huachuca, where the applicant was promised to learn about fiber optic splicing. The applicant received a DUI before leaving Fort Stewart. The applicant went from a great situation to becoming depressed. Months had passed and the applicant never received any orders. Every day, the applicant’s Chief would tease the applicant about being stuck at Fort Stewart. The applicant became more and more depressed and stopped caring about the appearance and the task at hand. The applicant just wanted to go home. One year and eight months later, the applicant was discharged. The applicant signed false documents against the applicant, but the applicant did not care. The applicant being at home, the applicant only seen the applicant’s child twice; once when the child was 3 years old and the other when the child was 15. The applicant will never forget being proud of serving the country. The applicant is proud to be a veteran and the applicant’s goal is to be a proud veteran who served honorably. The discharge papers signed by the superiors at the time are fraudulent and do not match the records from the State of Georgia. The discharge papers reflect three driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and Georgia documents reflect one DUI. There are several discrepancies the applicant has to present. The applicant was suffering from illnesses, post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions, because of events which happened during the military career. Despite having the military career derailed, the applicant managed to become a productive member of society. The applicant loves the country. The applicant was left in jail for 50 days, and the city of Hinesville Georgia, or 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regiment, can produce the records. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 4 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 January 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 May 2001 (2) Basis for Separation: Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, UCMJ, dated 21 February 2001, for wrongful use of marijuana; The applicant had been cited on two (pen and ink change) occasions for driving while under the influence, which resulted in the suspension of the driving privileges; The applicant received a Summarized Article 15, dated 5 February 2001, for being derelict in the performance of your duties; The applicant has been counseled in regard to indebtedness to AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service); and These acts reflect poorly on the applicant, the unit, and the United States Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 May 2001 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 2 May 2001, the applicant requested consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. On 22 May 2001, the applicant’s case was referred to an administrative separation board. Per Staff Judge Advocate memorandums, dated 22 May and 28 September 2001: On 31 July 2001, 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 19 November 2001, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. On 28 December 2001, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 December 2001 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / On 28 December 2001, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation, but under the provisions of AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2), which is for Misconduct – Abuse of Illegal Drugs. There appears to be an error in the separation authority’s memorandum, and it is unclear whether the separation authority intended to approve the separation as recommended by the applicant’s commanders, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14- 12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, or change the reason for separation. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 April 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31L10, Cable System Installer Maintainer / 3 years, 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 July 1998 – 12 April 2000 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Georgia Uniform Traffic Citation, dated 23 July 2000, reflects the applicant was cited for a DUI. The applicant submitted a breath sample which resulted in 0.170 blood alcohol content. Memorandum, subject: Suspension of Installation Driving Privileges, dated 23 July 2000, reflects the applicant’s driving privileges were suspended because of DUI. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the memorandum. DD Form 2624, dated 27 December 2000, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 12 December 2000. Summarized Article 15, dated 5 February 2001, for being derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to guard the barracks (between 1800, 31 January 2001 and 0600, 1 February 2001). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. Field Grade Article 15, dated 20 February 2001, for wrongfully using marijuana (12 December 2000). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $521 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Georgia Department of Public Safety, dated 17 March 2001, reflects the applicant was arrested for DUI. Memorandum, subject: Suspension of Installation Driving Privileges, dated 17 March 2001, reflects the applicant’s driving privileges were suspended because of DUI. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the memorandum. Personnel Action form, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective date 26 April 2001. Memorandum, subject: Summary of ADAPCP Rehabilitation Efforts for [Applicant], dated 2 May 2001, reflects the applicant’s commander referred the applicant to ADAPCP for evaluation on 11 January 2001. The medical evaluation was not completed. The memorandum described the efforts and resource in the applicant’s rehabilitation. The applicant failed to comply treatment plans and goals. The Acting Clinical Director concurred with the commander’s recommendation the Soldier be separated from the military. Memorandum, subject: Recommendation for separation UP AR 65-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, dated 2 May 2001, reflects the applicant’s immediate commander indicated the applicant, among other offenses, had been cited on three separate occasions for driving while under the influence. Memorandums, subject: Summary Sheet – Recommendation for Administrative Separation [Applicant], dated 22 May 2001 and 28 September 2001, reflects the Staff Judge Advocate indicated the applicant, among other offenses, had been cited on two separate occasions for driving under the influence. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct: Driving under the influence of alcohol Second DUI offense Reason for command directed urinalysis Positive urinalysis for THC Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) credit account being past due; and Sleeping on guard duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 25 days: CCA, 26 April 2001 – 16 May 2001 / Released from Confinement NIF, 14 November 2001 – 18 November 2001 / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293; and Department of Veterans Affairs Statement of Support of Claim. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has become a productive member of society. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 “JKK” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, 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 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 PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of depression. 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 is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends family issues contributed to 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 discharge paperwork is fraudulent and does not coincide with the State of Georgia DUI records. The AMHRR reflects the Notification originally stated three DUIs, but a pen and ink change was made to the document to reflect two DUIs and was presented to the separation authority as two DUIs. The record contains two citations for DUI and the applicant acknowledged receipt by endorsement of two notifications of suspension of driving privileges for DUI. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 a productive member of society. 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: None. Additionally, the applicant asserts Depression and PTSD, 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 that the applicant self-asserts having Depression and PTSD at the time of military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant self-asserts having Depression and PTSD at the time of military service, which could partially mitigate the basis for separation. However, beyond the applicant’s testimony there is no medical evidence to support applicant’s asserted BH conditions existed during military service. Applicant was not diagnosed in service with any BH conditions, and applicant is not service connected by the VA for any BH conditions. Applicant was diagnosed by the VA with Major Depressive Disorder 14 years after applicant’s discharge from the Army. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Depression and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was not diagnosed with PTSD, there are no supporting documents in the file to support a PTSD diagnosis or another condition that outweighs applicant’s marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness basis for separation. Therefore, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends family issues contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s family issues does not mitigate the applicant’s marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness as the Army affords many avenues to Soldier’s including seeking separation for hardship. (3) The applicant contends the discharge paperwork is fraudulent and does not coincide with the State of Georgia DUI records. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the discharge paperwork was fraudulent and the applicant does not have an experience or condition that excuses or outweighs the marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the applicant’s 3 years of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s the marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness basis for separation. (5) The applicant contends being a productive member of society. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant being a productive member of society does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the depression and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of marijuana use, multiple DUIs, Dereliction of duty, and indebtedness. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as 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 AR20210001970 1