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, an upgrade would allow the applicant to receive full VA benefits, including the Post-9/11 GI Bill and reimbursement for accrued leave. The applicant served the entire enlistment contract and was extended 103 days past the ETS date. The applicant contends the entire service was honorable, except for lying in a sworn statement. The applicant does not agree with the severity of the punishment received. The applicant was reduced to E-1 and given 30 days confinement. The applicant listed the awards and service medals earned, including a shoulder sleeve for wartime service. This one mistake has impacted the applicant's life. The applicant was young at the time of the discharge and did not think of the consequences. The applicant states suffering from a mild form of PTSD. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 /Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 October 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant unlawfully stole certain mail matter on more than one occasion between 1 January and 17 January 2005. On 17 January 2005, the applicant made a false official statement to a commissioned officer. Between 1 January and 17 January 2005, the applicant was derelict in the performance of duty to safeguard the mail. Between 20 November 2004 and 17 January 2005, the applicant violated First Infantry Division General Order Number one by possessing a cellular telephone without proper approval. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 6 October 2005, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 21 August 2005, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board as part of an Offer to Plead Guilty in a Summary Court-Martial proceedings. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 October 2005 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2001 / 4 years / Extended for 103 days for the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / High School Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 2 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq ( 19 January 2004 - 21 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, CIB, GWOTSM, ICM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Article 92 UCMJ: violation of Article 92 Specification I: Wrongfully possess a cellular telephone in the First Infantry Division area of operation without the authority of the First Infantry Commander. Specification II: Between 1 January and 17 January 2005, the applicant was derelict in the performance of duty to safeguard the mail. Charge II: Article 107 UCMJ: Specification: With intent to deceive, make a false official statement. Charge III: Article 134 UCMJ: Specification: On or about 1 January and 17 January 2005, steal certain mail matter, to wit a package containing a DVD Book and DVD addressed to a service member. The sentenced adjudged 7 September 2005; reduction to E-3; confined for 30 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 September 2005, 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. There is no evidence of a psychiatric condition, which would prevent this Soldier from participating in any legal or administrative actions. This Soldier meets the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501; and does not meet the criteria for a MEB. In other words; there is no evidence of an emotional or mental condition of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. This Soldier is currently mentally responsible for his behavior, can distinguish right from wrong, and possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative or judicial proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 24 days (CMA, 7 September 2005 - 1 October 2005) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and ARBA 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) 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 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. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends suffering from a mild form of PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 September 2005, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant the contends the punishment received was too harsh; and an upgrade would allow reimbursement for accrued leave. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Sentences adjudged under a Summary Court-Martial and reimbursement of leave do 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 applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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. 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 asserts Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 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 asserts having 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 the applicant asserts having PTSD. Applicant's asserted PTSD is considered by the Board despite the lack of medical documentation to support the assertion. However, there is no natural sequelae between PTSD and any of the misconduct that led to applicant's discharge since PTSD does not interfere with one's ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. There is no mitigation since PTSD does not contribute to stealing mail, making false official statements, or possessing a cell phone without approval. (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 PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - stealing mail, making false official statements, or possessing a cell phone without approval - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from a mild form of PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant's separation due to there being no natural sequelae between PTSD and applicant's misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that applicant's offenses of stealing mail, making false official statements, or possessing a cell phone without approval are acts for which discharge may be appropriate in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 3- 5. (3) The applicant the contends the punishment received was too harsh. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's discharge was inequitable based on the length of time since the discharge and the applicant's combat service. Therefore, an upgrade to General discharge is appropriate. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that applicant's youth and immaturity at 21 years of age did not fully outweigh the seriousness of applicant's misconduct. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that applicant's length of service and combat service do merit upgrade to General discharge. (6) 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. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. The Board did not find that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder excused or mitigated the applicant's misconduct. The Board also considered applicant's contentions regarding youth and immaturity and a desire to use Veteran's benefits and determined that these contentions did not merit further upgrade. 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. The applicant's upgrade to General discharge is proper and equitable. The applicant's misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20210001991 1