1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, as reported in the Riverside Counseling letter, serving in both the Marines and the Army. The applicant was in the Infantry in the Marines and was initially deployed to a unit, which was attached to the Navy and played a support role in the region during the early stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The applicant later transferred to a company, which was deployed to Iraq and the applicant served two tours with the Marines in Iraq. The applicant was honorably discharged in 2007 and enlisted in the Army shortly thereafter. The applicant was assigned to a transportation unit and served in Kandahar and Hellman Province, Afghanistan, during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) for two tours. The applicant was discharged in March of 2015, under other than honorable conditions related to an assault charge against the applicant’s spouse. The applicant served time in jail for the assault and was discharged. The applicant constantly experienced significant and disruptive PTSD symptoms. The assault was very likely a result of these symptoms. The applicant discussed the time in Afghanistan during the psychotherapy sessions. The applicant was involved in patrols, convoy operations, and experienced improvised explosive device attacks. The applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of the applicant’s exposure to, and threats to own self in witnessing and participating in traumatic combat events. The applicant described during therapy various symptoms, to include being easily agitated and angered and constantly wanting to fight, often thinking about doing harm; as in the example of learning the spouse had cheated while the applicant was deployed and then “exploding.” The symptoms have been present since the applicant’s return from Afghanistan. The symptoms are significantly and negatively impacting the family, and social interactions. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: On 14 May 2014, the applicant unlawfully struck the spouse, R. M., in the face with the fists. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 21 August 2014, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge. On 14 November 2014, the separation authority disapproved the request for conditional waiver and the case was referred to administrative separation board. On 23 January 2015, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant was represented by counsel. The applicant was absent because of confinement by civil authorities. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 5 March 2015, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The separation authority’s memorandum reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and screened negative for both. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 November 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 88M3P, Motor Transport Operator / 14 years, 1 month, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 11 January 1999 – 6 August 2007 / HD (Break in Service) RA, 23 October 2008 – 21 March 2012 / HD RA, 22 March 2012 – 24 November 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (30 August 2009 – 30 August 2010; 28 February 2012 – 8 September 2012); Iraq (13 September 2004 – 8 April 2005; 9 January 2006 – 5 August 2006); Worldwide (14 August 2000 – 14 February 2001) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, PH, ARCOM, AAM-3, N/MCAR, NUC, NMUC, VUA, AGCM-2, MGCM-2, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NRSS-2, N/MEM, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 31 August 2013 – 30 August 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action form, reflects the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective date 14 May 2014. Formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 23 January 2015, reflects the administrative separation board found the applicant did on 14 May 2014, unlawfully strike the spouse, R. M. and the incident warranted separation. The administrative separation board recommended the applicant be separated from service with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 317 days (CCA, 14 May 2014 – 26 March 2015) / NIF / The applicant was separated from service on 27 March 2015. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Riverside Counseling letter, dated 10 May 2016, reflecting the applicant was provided individual psychotherapy by the Tacoma Veteran’s Center from 15 through 1 April 2016. The treatment addressed evaluation and education of PTSD symptoms, of a clinically significant and chronic nature dating back to the applicant’s service during two tours in Afghanistan with the Army during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2008 and 2012 and two prior deployments in the Marines. The applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD, chronic; chronic pain from a shrapnel injury; problems with social environment (irritation disrupting social interactions, other psychological and environmental problems (exposure to war, serving jail sentence); and chronic disturbances of sleep. The licensed mental health counselor described what was reported by the applicant. The counselor recommended consideration of PTSD being undiagnosed at the time of the discharge may have impacted the conditions of the discharge. The applicant served honorably, and it was not until the symptoms overwhelmed the applicant’s ability to act in a rational manner to disturbing circumstances with the spouse. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; Two DD Forms 293; Riverside Counseling letter; Department of Veterans Affairs, Appointment of Veterans Organization as Claimant’s Representative; electronic mail messages; third party character reference; Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided a medical document indicating a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic; chronic pain from a shrapnel injury; problems with social environment; and chronic disturbances of sleep. The licensed mental health counselor recommended consideration of PTSD being undiagnosed at the time of the discharge may have impacted the conditions of the discharge and stated the applicant served honorably until the incident with the spouse. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. In the separation authority’s approval memorandum, the separation authority indicated the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI, with negative results. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to 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’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 good service, including five combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good military service 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 and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant is service connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is evidence of PTSD, established via service connection. However, PTSD does not impair one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right. There is no nexus between this condition and the serious assaultive behavior that led to discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unlawfully striking applicant’s spouse – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined PTSD does not impair one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right, as such there is no nexus between this condition and the serious assaultive behavior that led to applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant domestic abuse is not an acceptable response to dealing with family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and noted 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 Board determined that the applicant’s assertion does not mitigate or outweigh the applicant’s basis for separation due to the nature and severity of the offense. (4) The applicant contends good service, including five combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By unlawfully striking applicant’s spouse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unlawfully striking applicant’s spouse. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions and found there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any inequity or impropriety. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 AR20210002037 1