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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in the applicant’s otherwise stellar career. Prior to this episode the applicant received numerous awards for outstanding service. During the deployment to Iraq in 2008 to 2009, the applicant received a Commendation Letter from Brigadier General J. N. for outstanding courage and leadership during a complex attack on the unit. When the incident which led to the applicant’s discharge occurred in 2012, the applicant had recently returned from the second combat deployment within three years, as an Infantryman, the applicant routinely was engaged in firefights with the enemy in combat. The applicant lost friends during the deployments and suffered with coping with their loss. As a result of the deployments, the applicant suffered from issues which the applicant was embarrassed with and identified as a sign of weakness which was later identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Simultaneously, the applicant was reclassified into recruiting duty and the spouse asked for a divorce and wanted custody of their child. The chain of command did not seem to understand the applicant’s situation, and it led to the applicant being ordered into the Army Substance Abuse Program. Had the chain of command recognized the applicant was suffering from PTSD, the applicant believes they would have received the appropriate support to cope with the situation. After the discharge from the Army, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and receives disability compensation from the VA. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 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: Secretarial Authority / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3 / JFF / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 1 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 28 June 2012, the applicant was command-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program due to a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence. On 16 July 2012, the applicant declined the recommendation and refused to participate in the recommended Level III, Residential Treatment with 12 months of continuing care. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 December 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 January 2013 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / GED / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 6 years, 5 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 August 2006 – 1 February 2009 / HD RA, 2 February 2009 – 5 March 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (20 October 2010 – 28 July 2011); Iraq (19 September 2008 – 9 September 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, NATOMDL, MUC, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM- 2CS, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 4 June 2012 – 1 February 2013 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form, undated, reflects the applicant was command-referred in the ASAP. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 20 August 2012, reflects the applicant’s rehabilitation team met on 16 July 2012, and recommended the applicant for Level III, residential treatment for 12 months of continuing care. The Commander supported the treatment recommendation however, the applicant declined the recommendation. The Soldier should be considered for administrative action as deemed appropriate by the Command in accordance with AR 600-85. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for ASAP rehabilitation failure; non-recommendation for promotion; removal from recruiting duty; and being late for physical training formation and refusal to attend command directed ASAP counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Rating Decision Letter, dated 12 March 2014, reflects the applicant was granted 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Examination, dated 23 October 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: H/O TBI, anxiety, and alcoholism. Report of Medical History, dated 23 October 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: IED blast x6 while in Afghanistan 2010 to 2011. The applicant makes reference to being diagnosed with anxiety disorder; sleep disorder; PTSD counseling; and, diagnosed with a little depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self -authored statement; VA Rating Decision Letter; One Star Note; four certificates; Orders 210-7101; college transcripts; third- party letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is attending college and is three semesters from obtaining a bachelor’s degree in Emergency Management and Business Continuity. The applicant has maintained status on the dean’s list at school and is working hard to redeem oneself and most importantly, setting oneself to provide for the children. 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 5, provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (4) Paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. (5) Chapter 5-3 (Chapter 15 current regulation) provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided 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 identified the SPD code of “JFF” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-3, Secretarial Authority. 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-3, AR 635-200, with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations, at the time, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Secretarial Authority,” and the separation code is “JFF.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused 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 chain of command did not realize the applicant was suffering from PTSD. The applicant has since been diagnosed by VA for PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating Decision letter, dated 12 March 2014, which reflects the applicant was granted 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The AMHRR did not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant’s AMHRR does not reflect any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends attending college and is three semesters from obtaining a bachelor’s degree in Emergency Management and Business Continuity. The applicant has maintained status on the dean’s list at school and is working hard to redeem oneself and most importantly, setting oneself to provide for the children. 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 statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct while serving 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: PTSD, TBI, Acute Reaction to Stress, an Adjustment Disorder, and Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Acute Reaction to Stress, an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and TBI. He is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also existed during military service. (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 was diagnosed in service with Acute Reaction to Stress, an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and TBI. He is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. Given the nexus between PTSD, TBI, and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s BH conditions mitigate his original basis for separation, which was Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. Records suggest that the appropriate mitigation has already been applied since the applicant has an HD with Secretarial Authority. The Board’s Medical Advisor recommends that applicant’s RE Code remain a 3 due to his service connection for a BH condition. (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 PTSD and TBI outweighed the ASAP Failure basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. (2) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. (5) The applicant contends the chain of command did not realize the applicant was suffering from PTSD. The applicant has since been diagnosed by VA for PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. (6) The applicant contends attending college and pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Emergency Management and Business Continuity. The applicant has maintained status on the dean’s list at school and is working hard to redeem oneself and most importantly, setting oneself to provide for the children. The Board considered this contention and determined the current characterization of service is honorable with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority, there is no further relief available. 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 determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a Characterization of Honorable, therefore no further relief is available. (2) The Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a narrative Reason of Secretarial Authority with the associated SPD code JFF. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. The board, including the BMA, decided an RE Code of 3 was appropriate given the significance of the service-limiting behavioral diagnosis. ? 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 AR20210002022 1