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 an upgrade to honorable and narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being diagnosed with PTSD, and this disorder may have negatively affected the applicant’s judgement while serving on active duty. The applicant’s offense was an isolated incident during a 14 and a half-year military career. The applicant was an exceptional Soldier, NCO and leader. The applicant believes the applicant served the country with honor and would like this reflected in the Army discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 29 March 2016 c. Separation Facts (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about November 2014, while at or near Al Zarqa, Jordan, the applicant conspired to falsify fuel receipts. The applicant then, on or about January 2015, conspired and stole a receipt book from a business in Al Zarqa, Joran. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 5 January 2016, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / High School Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 18C4V, Special Forces Engineer Sergeant / 14 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 August 2001 – 4 November 2004 / HD RA, 5 November 2004 – 1 March 2009 / HD RA, 2 March 2009 – 18 November 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (11 July 2010 – 16 February 2011; 15 January 2012 – 15 May 2012); Iraq (22 January 2004 – 10 February 2005; 15 July 2005 (sic) – 22 January 2010) / The DD Form 214 appears to have an incorrect date of 15 July 2005 and should read 15 July 2009; Lebanon (18 October 2013 – 20 December 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, NATOMDL, JMUA, MUC-2, VUA-2, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTEM-2, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2012 – 29 December 2014 / Among the Best 30 December 2014 – 1 April 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 21 January 2015, reflects the investigation officer found the applicant: stole a receipt book from I. M. S. & B. C. LLC; SSG C. assisted the applicant in stealing the receipt book by acting as a look out; the applicant and SSG N. entered into a conspiracy to steal money for the US Government by submitting false fuel receipts; and, SSG N. and the applicant did not inform anybody else about their plan to defraud the US Government. FG Article 15, dated 14 April 2015, on or about November 2014, for conspiring with SSG J. N. to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: falsifying fuel receipts, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the said forged fuel receipts; on or about 12 January 2015, conspire with SSG J. C. to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: larceny of a receipt book, the property of I. M. S. & B. C. LLC and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the said stole a receipt book as SSG J. C. monitored the area; and, on or about 12 January 2015, steal a receipt book, of a value of less than $500 the property of I. M. S. & B. C. LLC. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,976 pay, suspended; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days suspended. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 June 2015, 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. One Developmental Counseling Form, for debt owed to the U.S. Government. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA Medical Records, dated 8 December 2016, which reflect the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 1 July 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: History of concussion with brief LOC during 2009 deployment rollover trauma. Amnesia from concussion in 2009. No memory of trauma and surrounding pre and past event. No ongoing memory issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online Application; self-authored statement; five third-party letters; VA Medical Records. 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) 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-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 and an narrative reason change. The applicant contends good service, including five combat tours. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c states circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant provided VA Medical Records, dated 8 December 2016, which reflect the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 June 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis and was considered by the separation authority. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good conduct while serving in 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 to determine if a change to the narrative reason or RE code is warranted as a prior Board already granted the applicant an Honorable characterization of discharge based on non-behavioral health considerations. The applicant’s records revealed that the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD and Concussion. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed in service with a Concussion and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during 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 was diagnosed in service with a Concussion and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD, which are potentially mitigating BH conditions. However, there is no natural sequela between PTSD or a Concussion and falsifying receipts or theft since neither PTSD or a Concussion interfere with one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 and Concussion outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – falsifying receipts and theft. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including five combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that the applicant’s request to upgrade to an Honorable characterization of service and change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge was previously granted. The Board determined the applicant’s RE Code is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that the applicant’s request to upgrade to an Honorable characterization of service and change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge was previously granted. The Board determined the applicant’s RE Code is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that the applicant’s request to upgrade to an Honorable characterization of service and change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge was previously granted. The Board determined the applicant’s RE Code is proper and equitable and there is nothing in the applicant’s record the warrants a change. 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, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002032 4