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, on 13 December 2012, the applicant received a DUI. This decision has changed the applicant's life in so many ways. The applicant has used this experience not only as a learning one but as a growing one. In the short time in the United States Army, the applicant had learned an individual can be part of something greater than themselves and all can work as one. The applicant's actions went against everything the Army had taught, and there is no excuse. The applicant was immature, irresponsible, and ignorant, and completely understood the reason for the discharge. However, the applicant has grown from this experience and does not want it to define the path ahead. The applicant has maintained a full-time job and will receive an associate degree in Medical Assisting in August 2016. The applicant states being on a profile for a left hip injury. The doctors could never pin- point what exactly was wrong, and because of this, the applicant received constant harassment and ridicule from superiors. Two years after the applicant was discharged, an orthopedic specialist diagnosed the applicant's left hip injury as a labral tear in the left hip, bursitis, and tendonitis. After the surgery, the applicant was informed since the tear had gone so long untreated, there was no cartilage to repair. The applicant contends being a victim of sexual assault but was too scared and ashamed to report it to the section sergeant but instead confided in another battle buddy. A week later, the applicant received discharge orders, and the incident never came to light. The applicant blames oneself for never having the courage to speak up about it. After returning home, the applicant attended counseling for the incident and talked about the experiences in the Army and the DUI. The applicant cannot change the past but would like to continue to improve the future by asking the Board for the privilege of an honorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder and length of service outweighing the applicant's DUI basis for separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 15 December 2012, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 February 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 May 2012 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 12C10, Bridge Crewmember / 10 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 15 December 2012, Fort Benning Military Police apprehended the applicant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The officer observed the applicant fail to maintain the lane of traffic. After initiating a traffic stop, the officer administered a breathalyzer test which resulted in a reading of .151 grams per 210 liters breath alcohol content, exceeding the legal limit of .08g/210L. In accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-3b, and Army Regulation 190-5, paragraph 2-7a(3). Commander's Report, undated, reflects the applicant had not filed an unrestricted report of sexual assault within 24 months of the initiation of this separation action. Orders Number 071-2215, dated 12 March 2013, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 26 March 2013, from the Regular Army. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 15 January 2013, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA) effective 17 December 2012. Developmental Counseling Form, for being recommended for a chapter 14-12C separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 January 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. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood; Alcohol Abuse, Episodic, in remission. Recent DUI, December 2012, currently enrolled in ASAP. The applicant was evaluated as part of the process of Chapter separation. The evaluation consisted of a mental status exam, clinical interview, and review of records. Based on this evaluation there are minimal symptoms of depressed mood noted, related to being Chaptered out of the Army. There are no psychiatric conditions noted which require disposition through medical channels. Should new concerns arise, or symptoms emerge, reevaluation would be required. This individual is psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed necessary by Command. Report of Medical Examination, dated 17 December 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Alcohol use. Report of Medical History, dated 17 December 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Alcohol related chapter. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter; six letters of support. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has maintained a full-time job and is pursuing an associate degree in Medical Assisting. 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. 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 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 the doctors could never pin-point what exactly was wrong, and because of this, the applicant received constant harassment and ridicule from superiors. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends being a victim of sexual assault but was too scared and ashamed to report it to the section sergeant and instead confided in another battle buddy. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant's AMHRR contains a Commander's Report, which states the applicant did not file an unrestricted report of sexual assault within 24 months of the initiation of this separation action. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the assault. The AMHRR includes a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 January 2012, reflecting the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood; Alcohol Abuse, Episodic, in remission. Recent DUI, December 2012, currently enrolled in ASAP. The applicant was evaluated as part of the process of Chapter separation. The evaluation consisted of a mental status exam, clinical interview, and review of records. Based on this evaluation there are minimal symptoms of depressed mood noted, related to being Chaptered out of the Army. There are no psychiatric conditions noted which require disposition through medical channels. Should new concerns arise, or symptoms emerge, reevaluation would be required. This individual is psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed necessary by Command. A Report of Medical Examination, dated 17 December 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Alcohol use. Also, a Report of Medical History, dated 17 December 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Alcohol related chapter. The MSE and medical history were considered by the separation authority. 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 contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant has maintained a full-time job and is pursuing an associate degree in Medical Assisting. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant's good conduct during and after leaving the Army. 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: chronic adjustment disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts MST, 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 applicant is service connected for chronic adjustment disorder and has asserted MST prior to discharge. (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's chronic adjustment disorder mitigates the applicant's DUI as there is a nexus between such mood issues and self-medication with alcohol. The Board liberally considered applicant's asserted MST and determined the applicant's MST does not mitigate the applicant's DUI as the applicant's statement indicates that the applicant's MST occurred after the applicant's DUI offense. (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 chronic adjustment disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being a victim of sexual assault but was too scared and ashamed to report it to the section sergeant and instead confided in another battle buddy. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address as the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge because the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. The Board voted to upgrade the discharge to Honorable, Misconduct (minor infractions). (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address as the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge because the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. (3) The applicant contends the medical doctors could never pin-point what exactly was wrong, and because of this, the applicant received constant harassment and ridicule from superiors. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address as the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge because the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow 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. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant has maintained a full-time job and is pursuing an associate degree in Medical Assisting. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did did not address as the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge because the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Chronic Adjustment Disorder and length of service outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 Chronic Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically mitigated DUI offense. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002010 1