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, the discharge should reflect the meaningful and memorable time on active duty. The applicant contends serving the country with honor as has two generations of family members and desired to have a long and fruitful career which was interrupted by injuries. The applicant contends now being a disabled veteran who had to restructure and modify life and daily practices because of the time in the military. The applicant is proud to have served this country and desires for the level of commitment to be reflected in the discharge. The applicant’s life is forever affected by the time on active duty and will always consider it one of highest and proudest accomplishments. The applicant has made great strides to continue pushing forward even in lieu of the physical limitations. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 March 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: Physical Standards / AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 January 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed two consecutive Record Army Physical Fitness Tests. The applicant also violated policy by consuming alcohol in the company area and was cited for being drunk and disorderly conduct, which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 January 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 July 2011 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Heath Care Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 27 April 2011 – 11 July 2011 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 4 January 2013, for wrongfully consuming alcohol and drunk and disorderly in the company area on or about 6 November 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $835 pay per month for two months, with one month (suspended); and extra duty; restriction for 15 days and oral reprimand. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Two failed Army Physical Fitness Scorecards. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 November 2012, 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. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Primary Insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement and one letter of support. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has made monumental positive strides in life to recover physically and provide for family. The applicant is the proud parent of two beautiful children. The applicant currently lives in Florida with the fiancé and children. In 2014, the applicant received an associate degree in Legal Studies from Seminole State College while maintaining the Dean’s List. Currently, a student in the Legal Studies Program at the University of Central Florida maintaining at 4.0 grade point average. The applicant is on track to graduate with a double bachelor’s degree in Legal Studies and Public Administration in May of 2017. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-2c (previously paragraph 13-2e) states in pertinent part, separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. (6) Paragraph 13-8, stipulates the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 “JFT” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, Chapter 13-2e, Physical standards. 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 serving the country with honor as has two generations of family members before and desired to have a long and fruitful career which was interrupted by injuries. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends now being a disabled veteran who had to restructure and modify life and daily practices because of the time in the military. The applicant is proud to have served this country and desires for the level of commitment to be reflected in discharge. The applicant’s life is forever affected by the time on active duty and will always consider it one of highest and proudest accomplishments. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant contends making monumental positive strides in life to recover physically and provide for family. The applicant is the proud parent of two beautiful children. The applicant currently lives in Florida with the fiancé and children. In 2014, the applicant received an associate degree in Legal Studies from Seminole State College while maintaining the Dean's List. Currently, a student in the Legal Studies Program at the University of Central Florida maintaining at 4.0 grade point average. The applicant is on track to graduate with a double bachelor’s degree in Legal Studies and Public Administration in May of 2017. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct while 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 potentiallyvmitigating diagnoses/experiences: mood concerns on active duty and PTSD spectrum symptoms noted in VA records. Additionally, the applicant asserts behavioral health conditions, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found evidence of mood concerns (diagnosed as adjustment disorder) on active duty, and veteran later reports, in VA records, some impact of witnessing trauma on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given evidence of applicant’s behavioral health concerns presenting as adjustment disorder, the presence of mood concerns on active duty, and the subsequent reports of witnessing trauma as a medic while on active duty noted in the VA record. However, it does not appear that the nature of such concerns at the time of service rises to the level of mitigating alcohol-related offenses, nor would the presence of such concerns impair one’s ability to successfully complete the APFT. Evidence of the applicant’s BH concerns is considered by the Board, but the advisor finds no nexus between the adjustment/mood concerns and failure to obey a lawful regulation by consuming alcohol in the company area, especially given evidence that underage soldiers and a potential assault were also involved. (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 adjustment disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – being drunk and disorderly, and two consecutive APFT failures – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends serving the country with honor as has two generation of family members before and desired to have a long and fruitful career which was interrupted by injuries. 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 drinking in the company area and being drunk and disorderly, and failing the APFT two consecutive times, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends has made monumental positive strides in life to recover physically and provide for family though the applicant is a disabled veteran. The applicant is the proud parent of two beautiful children. The applicant currently lives in Florida with fiancé and children. In 2014, the applicant received an associate degree in Legal Studies from Seminole State College while maintaining the Dean's List. Currently, a student in the Legal Studies Program at the University of Central Florida maintaining at 4.0 grade point average. The applicant is on track to graduate with a double bachelor’s degree in Legal Studies and Public Administration in May of 2017. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s BH conditions presenting as adjustment disorder did not excuse or mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation – being drunk and disorderly, and two consecutive APFT failures. 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below the level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210002144 1