1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, serving honorably with a perfect service record until the applicant was given the wrong medication and completely lost touch with reality. The applicant pursued assistance for PTSD and was prescribed the anti-depressant called Zoloft. The applicant began acting extremely out of character because of the Zoloft. The applicant states there was no officer board, no Army psychological or physical evaluation, no chance to out process, and had no physicals and no therapy. The applicant cannot receive benefits to pay for therapy. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 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: Misconduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 5-13a(2) / JKB / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 June 2012 / The applicant refused to sign on 11 June 2012. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming of an officer and for receiving adverse information filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: conviction by the 1st Penal Chamber of State Court Munich II (Landgerict) of attempted manslaughter in unity of act with aggravated assault, in accordance with Sections 212, paragraph (1) and 224, German Criminal Code (StGB) and subsequent sentence of seven years and six months confinement. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 28 August 2012, the GOSCA recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 June 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 5 December 2007 / 3 years b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 29 / Master’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 56A, Command Unit Chaplain / 11 years, 6 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 August 1999 – 1 September 1999 / NA RA, 2 September 1999 – 1 September 2001 / HD ARNG, 2 September 2001 – 9 October 2002 / HD USARCG, 10 October 2002 – 10 January 2007 / NA USAR, 11 January 2007 – 4 December 2007 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / SWA Iraq (1 December 2008 – 1 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: BSR, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ARSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 5 December 2007 – 4 December 2008 / Best Qualified 5 December 2008 – 4 December 2009 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Previous offenses, dated 3 November 2009, Operating an unregistered vehicle due to expired registrations; Failure to obey an order or regulation. Military Police Report, dated 25 November 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Drunken Operation of a Vehicle (on post). Military Police Report, dated 17 January 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Simple Assault; Failure to obey an order or regulation; Obstruction of Justice; Fleeing the scene of a traffic accident (on post). Serious Incident Report dated 22 January 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with Attempted Manslaughter. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 15 April 2011, reflects on 25 November 2010, in Munich Germany, the applicant was observed driving in an erratic manner. The Polizei stopped the applicant and detected the odor of alcohol emitting from the applicant. The applicant was transported to the Polizei Station and administered a blood alcohol test resulting in a reading of .144 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Memorandum for local Legal Liaison Authority dated 5 March 2012 reflects, the applicant was found guilty of attempted manslaughter in the unity of act with aggravated assault. In accordance with section 212, paragraph (1) and 224, German Criminal Code. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 years, 10 months, 4 days (CCA, 10 March 2011 – 14 January 2016) / Released from Confinement. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A copy of a medical document, dated 19 August 2013, reflects a diagnosis of Bipolar 1 Disorder, Mixed, Severe (HCC) and the applicant was also diagnosed with alcohol abuse and PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; medical document. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant sought treatment for PTSD. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5–9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 5 prescribes disposition and procedures concerning miscellaneous types of separations whereby an officer may be dismissed, released, separated, and discharged from AD. In addition, it provides procedures whereby officers on AD or retired may be DFR of the Army. (6) Paragraph 5-8 (previously paragraph 5-13a(2)), prescribes for the separation of an officer due to conviction by foreign tribunal. An officer will be discharged when convicted by a foreign tribunal and either of the following applies: (1) The officer has been sentenced to death or imprisonment for more than 6 months, regardless of whether the sentence was suspended. (2) Regardless of actual sentence imposed, the officer has been convicted of an offense for which a sentence of more than 6 months of confinement is authorized by the Manual for Courts- Martial. (When the offense is not listed in the Maximum Punishments Chart or not closely related to an offense listed, the maximum punishments authorized by the United States or District of Columbia Code (whichever is less) will apply.) HRC (AHRC–OPD–A) will make final determination as to the officer’s disposition and provide separation instructions or guidance for further processing under chapter 4 of this regulation (whichever applies) to the CONUS ACOM/ ASCC/DRU. 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 “JKB” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 5-8, Misconduct. 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 pursued assistance for PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of a medical document, dated 19 August 2013, which reflects a diagnosis of Bipolar 1 Disorder, Mixed, Severe (HCC); and the applicant was also diagnosed with alcohol abuse and PTSD. The AMHRR is void of an MSE. The applicant contends service record was perfect and served honorably until the applicant was given the wrong medication, Zoloft, and completely lost touch with reality. The applicant contends not having an officer board, no Army psychological or physical evaluation, no chance to out process, and had no physicals and no therapy. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends not being able to get benefits to pay for therapy. 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. 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 seeking treatment for PTSD. 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. 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: Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and an Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and an Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant was diagnosed in service with multiple BH conditions to include Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and an Adjustment Disorder. However, there is no natural sequela between any of these BH conditions and attempted manslaughter. While someone in an acutely manic state may display increased aggression, repeatedly striking someone in the head causing a skull fracture is beyond what would be associated with a manic episode or an adverse effect to Zoloft as asserted by the applicant. Furthermore, the police report indicates that applicant’s victim was known to the applicant, suggesting that the assault was deliberate and intentional. (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 Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, or Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – attempted manslaughter, aggravated assault – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends serving honorably with a perfect record until the applicant was given the wrong medication while seeking assistance with PTSD, Zoloft, and completely lost touch with reality. The applicant contends had no officer board, Army psychological or physical evaluation, no chance to out process, had no physicals and no therapy. The Board considered this contention and determined there is no connection between the applicant’s PTSD or medication and the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct. Further, the Board determined, per the procedures as laid out in AR 600-8-24, paragraph 5-13, and 5-14, as was in effect at the time of applicant’s separation, the applicant was properly discharged given the conviction by foreign tribunal. (2) The applicant contends not being able to get benefits to pay for therapy. 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 (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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. With the attempted manslaughter and aggravated assault charges, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends seeking treatment for PTSD. 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 discharge due to the severity of the offenses. 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, or Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of attempted manslaughter and aggravated assault. 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service 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 and the applicant’s BH conditions though not mitigating, are service limiting. 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 AR20210002216 1