1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, on 22 February 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at Fort Riley by the Irwin Army Community Hospital Behavioral Health. In December 2011, the applicant deployed with the 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and was assigned to the 3rd Group, Special Forces Afghanistan. The applicant should not have been allowed to medically clear Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP) or been deployed for the third time. The applicant’s chain of command was provided the opportunity to medically retire the applicant through the medical evaluation board (MEB) and chose not to. According to the Social Security Act, the applicant is unemployable and unfit for civilian employment. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, with full military benefits and to restore the applicant’s rank to Sergeant First Class. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 June 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 February 2012, the applicant drove under the influence of alcohol; On 12 December 2012, the applicant was found drunk on duty; On 17 October 2012, the applicant resisted apprehension, unlawfully entered a personal residence, and communicated a threat; and On divers occasions between 4 and 12 December 2013, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The intermediate commanders recommended general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 June 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 20 June 2013, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon being retained to receive medical retirement. On 30 July 2013, the separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver and referred the case to an administrative separation board. On 12 August 2013, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 27 August 2013, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 31 October 2013, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board, with exceptions. The separation authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority considered whether the applicant should have been processed thorough medical disability channels or under administrative separation provisions. The separation authority directed the applicant be processed under AR 635-200 because the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or substantial cause of the misconduct and there were no other circumstances which warranted continued physical evaluation board processing. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 44 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 25U40, Signal Support System Specialist / 23 years, 3 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 May 1987 – 25 August 1991 / HD ARNG, 26 August 1991 – NIF / NIF (Break in Service) ARNG, 3 January 1999 – 1 July 2002 / NIF USARCG, 2 July 2002 – 4 February 2003 / HD RA, 30 May 2003 – 9 February 2005 / HD RA, 10 February 2005 – 5 November 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (15 January 2011 – 29 December 2011); Iraq (13 March 2004 – 14 March 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, BSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-4, NATOMDL, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2008 – 31 October 2011 / Among the Best 1 November 2011 – 8 August 2012 / Marginal 9 August 2012 – 8 August 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: New York City Police Uniform System – Complaint, dated 22 February 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for driving while intoxicated, driving alcohol. A traffic stop was initiated when an officer observed the applicant driving the wrong way on the street and swerving, unable to maintain vehicle within the lane. The applicant admitted to drinking and was unaware of an injury to the lip which was bleeding. The applicant submitted to a breath test, which resulted in .196 blood alcohol content. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Pass,” to “Confined,” effective date 22 April 2012; and From “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” to “Present for Duty (PDY),” effective date 22 May 2012. Supreme Court of the State of New York Certificate of Disposition – Misdemeanor / Violation, dated 23 July 2012, reflects on 23 April 2012, the applicant as convicted by plea of operating motor vehicle with .08 of 1 percent alcohol. The applicant was sentenced to a fine for $500 conditional discharge for one year; and imprisonment for 55 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 7 August 2012, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol. After being stopped for failing to maintain the lane of travel on 22 February 2012. The applicant submitted to a breath test which resulted in a blood alcohol content of .19. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement. Memorandum, subject: Notification of Administrative Reduction for Misconduct – Civil Conviction, dated 8 August 2012, reflects the applicant was administratively reduced for misconduct – civil conviction for driving while intoxicated. Military Police Report, dated 7 October 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Aggravated assault, Article 128, UCMJ (on post); Resisting apprehension, Article 95, UCMJ (on post); Unlawful entry, Article 134, UCMJ (on post) Communicating a threat, Article 134, UCMJ (on post); Cruelty to animals, Article 92, UCMJ (on post); and Suicidal gestures (on post). Memorandum for Record, subject: Probable Cause Breathalyzer, dated 12 December 2012 reflects the commander ordered a probable cause breathalyzer when on 12 December 2012 the applicant failed to report to work at the time prescribed and the applicant’s spouse informed the commander of being concerned about the applicant after a heavy night of drinking. A judge advocate determined there was probable cause to order a Probable Cause Breathalyzer on the applicant. The Alcohol Testing Form (Non-DOT), dated 12 December 2012, reflects the applicant submitted a breath test which resulted in a blood alcohol content of .067. Field Grade Article 15, dated 31 January 2013, for on four occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (4 and 12 December 2012) and being found drunk (12 December 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,532 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 27 August 2013, reflects the administrative separation board found the allegations against the applicant in the notification of proposed separation were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and warranted separation. The administrative board recommended separation under other than honorable conditions. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for being drunk on duty and failing to be at appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 37 days (CCA, 22 April 2012 – 28 May 2012) / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A copy of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 15 July 2013, reflecting the VA proposed a rating 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. A copy of VA letter, dated 15 January 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 July 2012, reflects the reason for evaluation was self-referral. 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 required further examination or testing to finalize diagnosis and recommendations. The applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; rule out PTSD; rule out obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Laurel Ridge Treatment Center Discharge Orders for Active Duty, dated 17 January 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol dependence. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 February 2013, reflects the applicant required further examination or testing to finalize diagnosis and recommendations. The applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; rule out PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: Laurel Ridge Treatment Center Discharge Orders for Active Duty, as described in previous paragraph 4j(1). Chronological Record of Medical Care, from 4 February 2010 to 16 July 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD; post-traumatic insomnia; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; condition was work related; alcoholism’ adjustment disorder with anxious mood; and unspecified mental disorder (nonpsychotic). Physical Profile (temporary), dated 23 January 2013, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Anxiety. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 29 May 2013, reflects the board determined among other conditions, PTSD, chronic, was medically unacceptable. The medical evaluation board referred the case to a physical evaluation board. Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary and Psychiatric Addendum are attached. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 June 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions Chapter 14-12c. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with positive results. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety. The applicant was undergoing treatment for PTSD and anxiety disorder and was being referred to the TBI clinic for mTBI screen. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; medical records; two Mental Status Evaluations; military awards, NCO Evaluation Reports; MEB Narrative Summary and Psychiatric Addendum; two VA letters; and 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for 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 affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating diagnoses: Chronic PTSD; anxiety; alcohol dependence; and adjustment disorder. The VA rated the applicant 70 percent disabled for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent an MEB on 23 January 2013 and found medically unfit for PTSD. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 5 June 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with positive results. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety and referred to the TBI clinic for mTBI screen. The case was referred to a PEB. The MSE and MEB were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The AMHRR reflects the separation authority considered whether the applicant should have been processed thorough medical disability channels or under administrative separation provisions. The separation authority directed the applicant be processed under an administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-200. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the applicant’s rank should be restored to Sergeant First Class. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 evidence of PTSD diagnosed on active duty, for which applicant is now service connected. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has evidence of PTSD while on active duty, now service connected by the VA. Presence of PTSD results in partial mitigation of the offenses leading to discharge. Specifically, there is a nexus between PTSD and substance-use related offenses, to include DUI and impairment while on duty, due to patterns of self-medication often associated with PTSD. PTSD also involves avoidance behaviors, creating a nexus between this condition and failures to report. However, PTSD does not result in the inability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right and provides no mitigation for resisting apprehension, unlawfully entering a residence, or communicating a threat. (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 while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the FTR, and alcohol related offenses of DUI and drunk on duty misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – resisting arrest, unlawfully entering a residence, and communicating a threat. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and after weighing the totality of evidence determined that while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the FTR, and alcohol related offenses of DUI and drunk on duty misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – resisting arrest, unlawfully entering a residence, and communicating a threat. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends the applicant’s rank should be restored to Sergeant First Class. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the FTR, and alcohol related offenses of DUI and drunk on duty misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – resisting arrest, unlawfully entering a residence, and communicating a threat. 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 AR20210002053 1