1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after returning stateside from deployment in Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the applicant experienced a troubled period. All of the applicant's superiors were unaware of why the applicant believed the way the applicant did. None of them had ever been on an active war deployment and it made the applicant uneasy. As an X-ray and Computed Tomography Technician, they had saved many lives while in Iraq and the applicant believed the clinical work done in Fort Bliss was not enough, which led to the applicant not following directions and placing oneself in charge. The applicant regrets believing this way because clinical diagnoses are just as important as traumatic ones. The applicant always knew this because the applicant was doing clinical diagnoses prior to the deployment. There was something different about the applicant and the applicant's life, work, marriage, children, and everything the applicant could think of at the time. The applicant has since been diagnosed with PTSD. Actually, the applicant was diagnosed before the discharge because the applicant could sense a difference in the applicant's behavior. The applicant began seeing a counselor, but it just may have been too late. The applicant believes the applicant had a great and proud military career until the applicant returned from Iraq and had to cope with much anger, the belief of being misunderstood and alone, depression, insomnia, and the dreadful nightmares which led to the applicant not listening and breaking rules. This contributed to the applicant's divorce because the applicant's ex-spouse could not understand why the applicant would do certain things and the applicant could no longer let the ex-spouse in for some reason. The applicant shut the ex-spouse out. The applicant was late to work because the applicant was not sleeping. Things like this were out of character for the applicant and was and still is a growing and learning process. The applicant has to recognize the symptoms and triggers every day and use coping mechanisms to maintain focus. The applicant did take anti-depressive medication for a while, but the applicant believed it was responsible for the applicant not having any natural drive and a sense of laziness and sluggishness. The applicant seeks the help of a spiritual group within the applicant's church and has been doing great. The applicant is gainfully employed, has maintained a healthy six year relationship with a significant other, and spends time with the kids and family. The applicant has the most positive attitude of anyone the applicant knows, every day. The applicant knows the applicant must take it one day at a time. Looking at the applicant's DD Form 214, the applicant realizes it is time to set those mistakes and horrible behaviors behind the applicant. The applicant teaches the applicant's two children a person cannot hide or lie about mistakes, but must simply work extra hard to recover from them. Mistakes do not define the person. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board, based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the basis for separation - FTR, disobedience - determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. The Board determined the characterization of service and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: 22 May 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 April 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant's multiple offenses of failing to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed between 28 April 2005 and 8 February 2006; willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer, namely, Sergeant (SGT) W. H. The applicant received two Article 15s for the applicant's actions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 19 April 2006, the applicant waived counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 April 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 July 2000 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91P10, Radiology Specialist / 5 years, 10 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 January 2004 - 5 January 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Company Grade Article 15, dated 27 September 2005, for, on 11 occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (between 28 April and 24 August 2005) and for disobeying a lawful order from Sergeant W. H., a noncommissioned officer, to report the Staff Duty Desk at 0530 every day from 27 April to 11 May 2005 as part of corrective training (8 May 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $150 pay; extra duty for 14 days; and restriction for 14 days (suspended). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 13 February 2006, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 27 September 2005, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (18 October 2006 (sic)). Field Grade Article 15, dated 10 March 2006, for, on 12 occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (between 18 October 2005 and 8 February 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $318 pay; and extra duty for 30 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. The applicant was counseled on 20 October 2005 and agreed with the counseling. The applicant notified the counselor the applicant was having a hard time sleeping at night and it was wearing the applicant down. The applicant had an upcoming mental health appointment. The applicant was taking medication, but it was not working. The applicant indicated, although it did not seem like it, the applicant was trying. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Outpatient Progress: Emergency Walk In, dated 23 May 2005, reflecting the applicant was seen an emergency walk-in. The impression from the treating physician is the applicant had adjustment disorder with depressed mood; dyssomnia; occupational problems, occupational stress; separation from spouse; and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 70. The applicant needed to be evaluated for alcohol abuse and anxiety spectrum disorder. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 13 April 2006, reflecting the applicant's problems listed as insomnia and PTSD. Veterans Affairs Disability entitlement letter, dated 21 July 2006, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: William H. Beaumont Army Medical Center, Emergency and Treatment record, dated 5 October 2005, reflects the applicant was treated and diagnosed with mild depression. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 30 March 2006, reflects the applicant's problems listed as insomnia and PTSD. Report of Medical History, dated 30 March 2006, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was evaluated by Behavioral Health and diagnosed with PTSD, currently being treated. Report of Medical Examination, dated 30 March 2006, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Chronic PTSD. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 April 2006, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; there was no evidence of any mental disease or defect which would warrant a disposition through medical / psychological channels. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; medical records; VA entitlement letter; Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been gainfully employed, has maintained a healthy six year relationship with a significant other, spends more time with the family, and maintains a very positive attitude. 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 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 the discharge should be upgraded to honorable because PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant's current characterization for the period under review is honorable. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of PTSD and insomnia. The VA rated the applicant 30 percent disability for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a medical examination on 30 March 2006, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 13 April 2006, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; and there was no evidence of any mental disease or defect which would warrant a disposition through medical / psychological channels. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problems. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being gainfully employed, maintaining a healthy six year relationship with a significant other, spending more time with the family, and maintaining a very positive attitude. 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 applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 was diagnosed with PTSD on active duty and is also service connected for this diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant had clear evidence of PTSD at the time of service. The psychology advisor opines a nexus between PTSD and the circumstances of the discharge. The natural course and sequalae of PTSD is often associated with avoidance behaviors such as failure to report and difficulties with/distrust of authority figures which can be manifested as disrespect or failure to follow orders. The applicant already has an honorable discharge but mitigation may impact the applicant's narrative reason for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTR, disobedience - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded to honorable because PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant already holds an HD. The Board then determined further relief was warranted and voted to upgrade the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) with a corresponding SPD code of JKN. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant contends being gainfully employed, maintaining a healthy relationship with a significant other, spending more time with the family, and maintaining a very positive attitude. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the basis for separation - FTR, disobedience - thus warranting an upgrade of the applicant's narrative reason for discharge. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and the applicant's PTSD though mitigating is service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002165 1