1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant, through counsel, requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, suffering from a traumatic battlefield event in which the applicant was seriously injured and received the Purple Heart. After the injuries, the applicant’s Army medical records repeatedly set forth a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant’s military evaluations before and after the battlefield injuries describe two different Servicemembers. Despite more than two years of Army medical records, which consistently set forth a PTSD diagnosis, the medical evaluation conducted in connection with the applicant’s discharge concluded the applicant “does not display any symptoms compatible with PTSD.” The evaluation did not explain the significant discrepancy with the applicant’s previous medical records, or even mention the fact the applicant previously had received a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant’s diagnosis by Dr. B. H., attending psychiatrist Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, included chronic PTSD. This diagnosis echoed the diagnosis the applicant had received during the service, as well as the post-service diagnosis of another physician, Dr. G. Secretary Hagel’s guidance highlights the serious flaws in the decision in the applicant’s case. The applicant was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD at the time of the applicant’s service. Yet this information was disregarded at the time of the applicant’s discharge. When this serious mitigating factor is considered in conjunction with the numerous positive factors concerning the quality of the applicant’s service, length of service, combat service, the wounds the applicant received in action, the applicant’s awards, and the applicant’s general acts of merit, it is apparent the applicant’s discharge status is inequitable. The applicant does not dispute the conduct which led to the discharge was improper. The applicant is ashamed of the past behavior and wonders why the applicant could not be the exemplary Soldier the applicant once was; a Soldier whom superiors described as “a sterling example of military bearing” and who, after being seriously injured in the attack on the unit, remained calm and lent aid to a fallen comrade. This is the destructive power of PTSD. The applicant’s promising military career is a distant memory, the applicant’s service is forever tarnished, and the applicant struggles every day with homelessness, addiction, and depression. The applicant faces a difficult path, but hopes with a little assistance, the applicant may resurrect the applicant’s life. The Department of Veterans Affairs rated the applicant 70 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD; 100 percent combined. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 1 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Acknowledgement, dated 2 February 2011, reflects the Notification was served, but the applicant refused to sign the Acknowledgement. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 6 November 2010, the applicant disrespected First Lieutenant (1LT) M. M., a superior commissioned officer, in violation of Article 89, UCMJ; On 16 November 2010, the applicant assaulted Specialist (SPC) J. S. by pushing SPC J. S. with both of the hands and causing SPC J. S. to collide into a doorway, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, and went from the appointed place of duty, to wit: EOC Desk located at Building 600, Rose Barracks, Germany, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; On 10 November 2010, the applicant was insubordinate towards Sergeant First Class (SFC) Z. Y., a noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; On 3 November 2010, the applicant failed to report to duty, to wit: 1600 unit accountability formation, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; On 2 November 2010, the applicant assaulted a behavioral health staff member by spitting on the staff member, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; On 27 October 2010, the applicant was insubordinate towards Sergeant (SGT) F. H., a noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; On 20 July 2010, the applicant failed to report to duty, to wit: 0630 unit accountability formation, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; On 6 June 2010, the applicant drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of 0.188 gram / milliliter (G/ml), in violation of Article 111, UCMJ; On 21 March 2010, the applicant went from the appointed place of duty during a field exercise, to wit: Hoehnfels Training Area, Germany, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; On 13 March 2010, the applicant failed to report to duty, to wit: 0630 unit accountability formation, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; On 11 February 2010, the applicant disrespected Captain (CPT) R. H., a superior commissioned officer, in violation of Article 89, UCMJ; On 17 December 2009, the applicant was derelict in the performance of the duties by negligently failing to maintain the unit property book, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; On 19 November 2009, the applicant went from the appointed place of duty, to wit: physical training at Rose Barracks, Germany, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, and was derelict in the performance of the duties by failing to lead physical training at Rose Barracks, Germany, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; On 26 January 2009, the applicant drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of 0.058 G/ml, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ; and On 24 December 2008, the applicant: Communicated a threat to Private First Class (PFC) C. H. by saying “I’m a Staff Sergeant and I am going to fuck you up later,” or words to that effect, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ; Assaulted J. R. by punching J. R.’s face with a closed fist, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; Committed larceny against bar “No Name” located in Vilseck, Germany, by walking out of the bar without paying a bar tab, of a value less than $500, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; and Committed robbery against K. G. by ripping a necklace off K. G.’s neck, of a value less than $500, in violation of Article 122, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF / On 24 February 2011, the applicant requested consideration of the case by an administrative separation board, but the record is void of any administrative separation board proceeding or an unconditional waiver of the board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 September 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / 1 Year College / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y30, Unit Supply Specialist / 9 years, 2 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 March 2002 – 20 September 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (12 March 2003 – 12 March 2004; 1 November 2004 – 1 November 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-3, PH, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2007 – 31 January 2008 / Fully Capable 1 February 2008 – 31 January 2009 / Fully Capable 15 June 2009 – 24 January 2010 / Fully Capable 25 January 2010 – 15 May 2010 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Field Grade Article 15, dated 19 April 2010, for going from the appointed place of duty (19 November 2009); behaving with disrespect toward CPT. R. H., the superior commissioned officer, by dropping all paperwork, walking away, and saying, “I am overwhelmed,” while CPT R. H. was speaking to the applicant (11 February 2010); and being derelict in the performance of the duties, by willfully failing to supervise Soldiers conducting physical training (18 November 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,380 pay (suspended); and extra duty for 30 days. The applicant appealed and the appeal was denied. Military Police Report, dated 6 June 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: drunken driving, Article 111, UCMJ (off post); drunk and disorderly conduct, Article 134, UCMJ (off post); traffic accident, failure to maintain control (off post); and a traffic accident resulting in damage to the host nation’s property (off post). Field Grade Article 15, dated 23 September 2010, for physically controlling a passenger car while drunk while the alcohol concentration in the breath was .188 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath shown by chemical analysis (6 June 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,146 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant appealed and the appeal was granted to reflect the restriction was reduced from 45 days to 30 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 10 November 2010, reflects the applicant in Adelshofen, Germany, was driving while under the influence of alcohol and causing a traffic accident. The applicant lost control of the vehicle, struck the wall of the Tauber Bridge, and continued driving until the applicant struck a guard rail causing the vehicle to rest in a ditch on the opposite side of the road. The Polizei and Military Police (MP) responded. The applicant was transported to the Polizei station where the applicant refused to give a beath test. The applicant was administered a blood alcohol test resulting in a reading of .18. The applicant was transported to the MP station where the applicant became belligerent by threatening the MPs, urinating on the latrine floor, and spitting on various areas of the MP station. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement arguing there was reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant was driving the vehicle, a fact never investigated by the MPs. Special Court-Martial Order Number 9, dated 29 June 2011, reflects on 22 January 2011, the applicant was tried by special court-martial. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Charge I: Article 86, UCMJ: Specification 1: On 3 November 2010, was absent from the unit until 8 November 2010. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Specification 2: Did on or about 16 November 2010, go from the appointed place of duty, to wit: duty at the 2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment Emergency Operations Center. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II: Article 89, UCMJ, The Specification: Did on or about 16 November 2010, behave with disrespect toward 1LT M. M., a superior commissioned officer, by saying “I don't give a fuck,” “You cannot make me do anything,” and contemptuously covering the ears with the hands. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge III: Article 91, UCMJ, The Specification: On or about 10 November 2010, was disrespectful in language and deportment toward SFC Z. Y., a noncommissioned officer, by saying, “I don't have to put up with this shit,” and by turning the back on SFC Z. Y. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge IV: Article 128, UCMJ, The Specification: On 16 November 2010, unlawfully strike SPC J. S. on the body, with the hands, causing SPC J. S. to collide into a doorway. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. I Charge V: Article 134, UCMJ, The Specification: On 16 November 2010, wrongfully communicate to SPC J. S. a threat to injure SPC J. S. by saying, “get the fuck out of my way or I'm going to knock your teeth down your throat and kick your ass.” Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Sentence: Reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $978 pay per month for two months; and to be confined for 60 days. The sentence was approved and ordered executed. The applicant was credited with 24 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confinement,” effective date 28 January 2011; and From “Confinement,” to “PDY,” effective date 22 February 2011. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for dereliction of duty and disrespect towards a commissioned officer. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 25 days (Confinement, 28 January 2011 – 21 February 2011) / Released from Confinement – Expiration of Sentence j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, from 1 December 2006 to 18 November 2010, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with Insomnia; depression; major depression recurrent severe; adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; PTSD. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 May 2011, reflecting 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 did not display symptoms compatible with PTSD. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, by history; alcohol abuse; and adult antisocial behavior. Memorandum of Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 November 2010, attached. A copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 18 February 2013, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with: Chronic PTSD (DSM IV 309.81); Major depression; Alcohol dependence; Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); History of cerebrovascular accident, chronic law back pain; Migraines; Homeless; Financial stress; Lack of support; and Unemployment. The psychiatrist opined the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of misconduct was as likely as not a result of the applicant’s uncontrolled PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4j(1). Report of Medical History, dated 13 April 2011, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Patient under care of mild traumatic brain injury and Behavioral Health; unable to hold job because of health. Report of Medical Examination, dated 14 April 2011, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two Legal Briefs with all listed exhibits A through L; numerous third party statements, military service records; Purple Heart orders; NCO Evaluation Reports; Chronological Record of Medical Care; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; Report of Result of Trial; VA letter; ADRB Case Report and Directive AR20140005475. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating in-service diagnoses: PTSD; insomnia; depression; major depression recurrent severe; and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The VA diagnosed the applicant with: Chronic PTSD; major depression; alcohol dependence; and TBI. The applicant provided third-party statements attesting to the applicant’s experiences during deployment. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 May 2011, which indicates 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 did not display symptoms compatible with PTSD. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, by history; alcohol abuse; and adult antisocial behavior. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends PTSD was not considered at the time of separation because the medical examination was inconsistent with the applicant’s medical records. The MSE reflects the examiner determined the applicant did not display symptoms compatible with PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The applicant contends being rated 70 percent service-connected disabled by the VA for PTSD, 100 percent combined. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention, however the applicant’s medical records reflect that the applicant was rated 70% for PTSD. The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good military service, to include during deployment. 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, after applying liberal consideration found the applicant’s behavioral health conditions could mitigate applicant’s original basis for separation that warranted, in part, a previous Board’s discharge characterization upgrade to an Honorable Discharge, and now warrants reconsideration of applicant’s discharge narrative. The applicant’s record reflect the following potentially mitigating behavioral health conditions: PTSD, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, PTSD and TBI existed during the applicant’s military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the applicant’s FTRs, AWOL, and DUI offenses as there is a nexus between PTSD and self-medication, avoidance, and authority. However, none of the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of larceny, robbery or assault as there is no natural sequela between PTSD/TBI, AD, and MD and these offenses. (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 the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depression do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – assault, dereliction of duties, larceny, and robbery warranting a change to the applicant’s narrative reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate based on Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, as the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses amount to a pattern of misconduct. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s PTSD partially mitigated the applicant’s misconduct that led to separation. However, the Board determined that the medically unmitigated misconducted referenced in paragraph 9a(4) warrants the narrative reason for separation of pattern of misconduct. (3) The applicant contends PTSD was not considered at the time of separation because the medical examination was inconsistent with the applicant’s medical records. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s PTSD mitigated part of the applicant’s misconduct that led to separation. The remaining misconduct of assault, dereliction of duties, larceny, and robbery warrants the narrative reason for separation of pattern of misconduct. The applicant was granted an upgrade to Honorable in a prior ADRB, which also liberally considered the applicant’s PTSD. (4) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the applicant’s 9 years of service, including 2 combat tours in Iraq and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s assault, dereliction of duties, larceny, and robbery. Thus, a change to the narrative reason is not warranted. (5) The applicant contends being rated 70 percent service-connected disabled by the VA for PTSD, 100 percent combined. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s PTSD, in part, warranted a prior Board to upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service to Honorable and this Board to partially mitigate the applicant’s misconduct as referenced in paragraph 9a(3) above. However, the Board determined that the totality of the applicant’s record, including the partially medically mitigated offenses do not outweigh the applicant’s narrative reason as the applicant’s remaining offenses amount to a pattern of misconduct. (6) The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. The Board considered this contention and determined the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s homeless and medically unmitigated offenses do not warrant a narrative reason change. However, the applicant may contact the local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance to determine eligibility for Veterans’ benefits. 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 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 AR20210002058 1