1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change; reentry eligibility (RE) code change and separation code change. The applicant seeks relief, contending, in effect, the discharge was improper and inequitable because the applicant should have been properly evaluated, diagnosed, and treated for combat- related PTSD prior to the discharge. The applicant's difficulties with the Army began upon the return from combat while suffering from undiagnosed combat-related PTSD. This led to a civilian arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and several minor interactions stemming from the applicant’s self-medication with alcohol to counter the lingering effects of PTSD. The Army failed to follow its own regulations, which conflicts with the directive from the Secretary of Defense to consider and show leniency if there is evidence of PTSD from a combat experience which affected the conduct in question. There is uncontroverted evidence of combat-related PTSD from two neutral medical sources: the VA and Parkland Hospital. Please upgrade the Separation Code, and Reentry Code, or upgrade the Narrative Reason for Separation and the two codes and order the issuance of a new DD Form 214 reflecting the corrections. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 11 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2011 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (16 March 2012 – 11 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 13 May 2013; and From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 6 June 2013. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 3 July 2015, reflects On 18 January 2013, the applicant was stopped in the vehicle by the Colorado State Patrol for driving the wrong way on a one-way street on Nevada Avenue, El Paso County, Colorado. Upon contact, the officer detected a strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant’s person. The applicant admitted to consuming alcohol prior to operating the vehicle. The police administered a series of voluntary roadside maneuvers which the applicant failed to complete satisfactorily. The applicant was administered a blood alcohol test which established the applicant’s blood alcohol level at .227 grams alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 28 days (CCA, 13 May 2013 – 10 June 2013) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: a copy of the Parkland Health and Hospital System behavioral health evaluation dated 15 January 2016, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD; depression, and a cocaine use disorder, mild, abuse. A copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Rating Decision dated 8 June 2016, reflects the applicant was assigned a service-connected disability rating of a 100 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Lawyers brief; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision; Parkland Health evaluation; self-authored letter; six letters of support; Excerpts from DD Form 2900; DA Form 638; Combat Action Badge order; Memorandum dated 3 September 2014; Memorandum dated 24 February 2016; and a VA Form 10-3542. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has found employment and sought assistance for mental health. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (4) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 a narrative reason change; reentry eligibility (RE) code change and separation code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, by reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and the separation code is “JKN.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, is “JKN.” The applicant contends the discharge was improper and inequitable because the applicant should have been properly evaluated, diagnosed, and treated for combat-related PTSD prior to the discharge. The applicant’s difficulties with the Army began upon the return from combat, while suffering from an undiagnosed combat related PTSD. The applicant contends the civilian arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and several minor interactions stemming from the applicant self-medicating with alcohol to counter the lingering effects of PTSD. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by Parkland Health and the VA. The applicant provided a copy of the Parkland Health and Hospital System behavioral health evaluation, dated 15 January 2016, reflecting a diagnosis of PTSD; depression, and a cocaine use disorder, mild, abuse. Also, a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Rating Decision, dated 8 June 2016, reflects the applicant was assigned a service-connected disability rating of a 100 percent for PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the Army failed to follow its own regulations, and it conflicts with the directive from the Secretary of Defense to consider and show leniency if there is evidence of PTSD from a combat experience which affected the conduct in question. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The third-party statements provided with the application speak of the applicant’s troubles. They all recognize the applicant’s struggles after leaving the Army. The applicant has obtained employment and sought assistance for mental health. 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 diagnosis: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Per applicant alone, asserts trauma symptoms in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and determined that the misconduct listed was already mitigated by a previous board, and the current narrative reason and RE Code are accurate and appropriate. (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 PTSD warranted further upgrade than the prior Board provided. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and SPD code for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board which corrected the inequity of the narrative reason, further relief was not warranted. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was improper and inequitable because the applicant should have been properly evaluated, diagnosed, and treated for combat-related PTSD prior to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board which corrected the inequity, further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the Army failed to follow its own regulations, and it conflicts with the directive from the Secretary of Defense to consider and show leniency if there is evidence of PTSD from a combat experience which affected the conduct in question. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board which corrected the inequity, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief due to the totality of the applicant’s service record is not warranted. (5) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s mitigating PTSD is service-limiting, and the RE-3 is equitable. (6) The applicant has obtained employment and sought assistance for mental health. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief due to the contended post- service accomplishments was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, since a prior ARBA Board corrected the inequity, further relief was not warranted. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and the mitigating condition is service limiting. 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 AR20210002012 1