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 and RE-code upgrade. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the administrative separation board determined the patterns of misconduct had occurred in a short period of time. According to the character witnesses and evidence presented, the misconduct did not portray the applicant's character in the years of prior service. During the misconduct, the applicant was suffering from alcoholism, marital abuse, and PTSD. The alcoholism and marital abuse were mentioned in the board and by the chain of command. The applicant had been diagnosed with adjustment and anxiety disorders but had not met the criteria for PTSD because of lack of outburst in the professional career. After the discharge, the applicant struggled with mental issues and a failed marriage. In 2014, the applicant was injured in a car accident, and while in the ICU for several days, the applicant was charged with DUI. The court appointed attorney helped the applicant receive counseling through the VA. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol abuse, which were upgraded to a higher percentage. After two years of counseling and treatment with medication, the applicant finally felt as being a contributing member of society. The applicant accepted responsibility for the actions leading to the misconduct. Pride also kept the applicant from asking for help when needed most because of being looked up to as a Soldier and as a person who always got the job done. The attributing factors to the behavior were overlooked by the board. With proper help and rehabilitation, the applicant would have been able to continue the military career. While the ADRB is unable to undo the separation, the applicant would like to have the characterization upgraded and the RE code changed to enable the applicant to consider serving in other capacities without the suspicion of being a troublemaker even with all the accomplishments. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Intimate Partner Violence victimization, and Anxiety Disorder mitigate the misconduct leading to discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant's acts of misconduct ranged from being drunk and disorderly, resisting apprehension, disobeying a lawful order, failing to be at the appointed place of duty; overindulging in intoxicating liquor which caused the applicant to be incapacitated for proper performance of the duties; willfully damaging military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $5,000; and physically controlling a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 22 August 2012, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 11 September 2012, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board found the allegations in the notification memorandum were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the service. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 December 2009 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 2 years college / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M20, Motor Transport Operator / 11 years, 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 24 March 2001 - 10 (sic) April 2002 / UNC AFANG, 12 April 2002 - 7 July 2002 / NA ADT-AFANG, 8 July 2002 - 12 October 2002 / HD AFANG, 13 October 2002 - 2 November 2002 / NA AD-AFANG, 3 November 2002 - 15 August 2003 / HD AFANG, 16 August 2003 - 28 December 2003 / NA AD-AFANG, 29 December 2003 - 22 July 2005 / HD AFANG, 23 July 2005 - 24 July 2005 / HD AFRCG, 25 July 2005 - 20 February 2007 / HD RA, 21 February 2007 - 15 December 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Saudi Arabia (7 December 2002 - 2 June 2003); Iraq (20 March 2008 - 10 June 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AFAM-2, MUC, AFOUV, AFOUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, AFRMMD, AFOSR(ST), AFRM The applicant's NGB Form 22 reflects award of the AFEM, SWASM, however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214 under review. The applicant's ERB reflects award of AFESR-GF, but the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2009 - 28 June 2010 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Developmental Counseling Forms for acts of misconduct. Military Police Report with German Police Report, dated in July 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for drunk driving, traffic accident resulting in damage to host nation and government property, failure to maintain, and failure to obey an order on 29 July 2010. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2010, for damaging a military property, a Dodge Durango in the sum of $5,000 on 29 July 2010, and operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol on 29 July 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and extra duty for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 6 December 2011, for being drunk and disorderly, resisting apprehension, and disobeying an Armed Force policeman on 12 November 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,162 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 28 February 2012, reflects the suspended punishment imposed on 6 December 2011, was vacated for violating Article 134, for being incapacitate for proper performance of duties by wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs on 18 December 2011. FG Article 15, dated 7 March 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty and being incapacitate for proper performance of duties by wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor on 18 December 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. Memorandum, dated 2 August 2012, Subject: Synopsis of Treatment Performance, referencing the applicant and rendered by the Clinical Program Manager of Wiesbaden Army Substance Abuse Program, reflects the applicant was command-referred on 21 November 2011 for drunk and disorderly conduct, and after having met the criteria for Alcohol Abuse, the applicant was enrolled in an outpatient treatment and was disenrolled on 29 February 2012, upon meeting the treatment requirements and having shown significant and solid progress in the ability to remain alcohol free. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A copy of VA medical records reflecting the applicant being diagnosed and treated for PTSD. A Summary of Benefits letter, dated 16 February 2021, reflects the applicant received a 100 percent combined service-connected evaluation, but does not reflect the rated disability. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical History, dated 15 May 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Currently being seen by Behavioral Health for anxiety. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 23 March 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 Health Care Provider noted the applicant's history of multiple examples of impulsivity, poor judgment, and multiple violations of the UCMJ could be attributed to the prior coexistence of the disorders of alcohol abuse, marital problems, and adjustment disorder, but did not meet the criteria for adjustment disorder. The MSE reflected an AXIS I diagnosis of an "Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." Memorandum, undated, rendered by a medical doctor, Dr. D. W., states the applicant received an evaluation and treatment at the Wiesbaden Army Health Clinic from November 2011, until June 2012, a total of nine times. The doctor opined the applicant's conduct in current enlistment involved difficulties coping with situational stress of the marital and family situation and consequences of previous and recent conduct, have stabilized and resolved, and the ability to adapt, cope, and exercise sound judgment and decision-making have improved accordingly. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; Additional Evidence: Summary of benefits letter; medical records, dated February through October 2014; packet containing DD Forms 214, NBG Forms 22, certificates, NCOERs, administrative separation board packet with third- party letters, doctor's treatment statement, ERB, and current DD Form 214; and a third-party statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, 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 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 a general (under honorable conditions) 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 suffering from alcoholism, marital abuse, and PTSD led to the misconduct. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of PTSD and treatment with medication. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 March 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE reflected an "AXIS I" diagnosis of an anxiety disorder NOS. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and attributed to the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. However, the AMHRR contains a memorandum rendered by a treating physician, which indicates the applicant's treatment at the Wiesbaden Army Health Clinic from November 2011 until June 2012, for difficulties coping with situational stress of the marital and family situation and consequences of previous and recent conduct, have stabilized and resolved, and the ability to adapt, cope, and exercise sound judgment and decision-making have also improved accordingly. The applicant contends the attributing factors for the behavior leading to the discharge were overlooked by the administrative separation board. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow serving in other capacities without the suspicion of being a troublemaker even with all the accomplishments. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends good service included being looked up to as a Soldier and as a person who always got the job done. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. 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: Anxiety Disorder NOS. Medical records reflect the applicant was both a victim and offender of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Post-service, the applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD with additional diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Anxiety Disorder NOS. Medical records reflect the applicant is service-connected for PTSD and MDD, and also was both a victim and offender of IPV. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board Medical Advisor determined that the applicant's PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV mitigate the applicant's alcohol-related offenses which were the basis of the discharge. (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, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV outweighed the medically mitigated alcohol-related offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from alcoholism, marital abuse, and PTSD led to the misconduct. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service and narrative reason for discharge due to PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV mitigating the applicant's multiple alcohol-related offenses. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the narrative reason for discharge due to PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV mitigating the applicant's multiple alcohol-related offenses. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and attributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV mitigating the applicant's multiple alcohol-related offenses (4) The applicant contends the attributing factors for the behavior leading to the discharge were overlooked by the administrative separation board. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, and IPV mitigating the applicant's multiple alcohol-related offenses (5) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code to a RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow serving in other capacities without the suspicion of being a troublemaker even with all the accomplishments. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant contends good service included being looked up to as a Soldier and as a person who always got the job done. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. c. The Board determined that the discharge was inequitable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Intimate Partner Violence victimization, and Anxiety Disorder mitigate the misconduct leading to discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board also determined that the current re-enlistment code (RE-3) is, at this time, proper and equitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD, MDD, IPV, and Anxiety Disorder mitigated the applicant's multiple alcohol-related offenses. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002226 1