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 applicant was discharged in 2007 after missing some drills. The applicant is responsible for the multiple absences but did not know the applicant was at risk of being discharged. The certified mail sent by the applicant's unit was returned unsigned for because it was all sent to the wrong address. The applicant had no phone contact with the unit. At the time, the applicant was struggling with issues related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of a 2003 deployment with the 812th. The applicant was avoiding the drills and was not receiving the help the applicant needed. The absences were the only issue the applicant had. After serving honorably through a combat deployment, the applicant was promoted to Corporal by the commander as one of the commander's last actions with the unit. The applicant received awards from the deployment and there was nothing negative on the applicant's record. After returning from deployment, the applicant was dealing with various issues which continued to escalate and seemed to be exasperated by the drills with the unit. There were substance abuse issues, with alcohol, which was increasing with the PTSD. The applicant accepts responsibility for not dealing with the issue at the time and knows the absences were the applicant's fault, but while suffering from PTSD, the applicant did not know it would result in the applicant's discharge. Again, there was no successful communication of this risk from the unit. Beginning in 2010, the applicant sought assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and counselors. Since then, the applicant has been successful and a productive citizen. The applicant has been with the current employer, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, for almost five years and was recently promoted to a supervisor position. Before this the applicant was working for the New Jersey state government for about five years as well. The applicant purchased a home this year and maintains a high credit score. The applicant desires to have the discharge upgraded to honorable as it is something which weighs on the applicant. The applicant believes the applicant's service before the issue was honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 February 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD diagnosis outweighed the applicant's unsatisfactory participation, the accepted basis for separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 May 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 2002 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / Some College / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 95B10, Military Police / 5 years, 2 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 25 February 2002 - 6 August 2002 / NA IADT, 7 August 2002 - 18 December 2002 / HD (Concurrent Service) USAR, 19 December 2002 - 6 February 2003 / NA AD, 7 February 2003 - 20 January 2004 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq - Kuwait (16 April 2003 - 18 December 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, AFRM-MD, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Orders 07-127- 00024, dated 7 May 2007, reflect the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135- 178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant was discharged in the grade of E-3. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision, dated 8 September 2010, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; separation orders; VA rating decision; and earnings statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being successful and a productive citizen; maintaining employment; recently being promoted to a supervisor position; purchasing a home; and maintaining a high credit score. 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant provided a discharge order: Orders 07-127-00024, dated 7 May 2007. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a VA rating decision indicating the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant's contentions about never being informed of the imminent discharge were considered. Army Regulation 135-178 stipulates a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation. The determination a Soldier is unqualified for further military service for unsatisfactory participation is prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91: attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence resulting in the Soldier's refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable, or verification the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including 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 successful and a productive citizen; maintaining employment; recently being promoted to a supervisor position; purchasing a home; and maintaining a high credit score. 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military service. There is no evidence that applicant's post service diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder existed during military service. (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 is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. While the basis for separation is not contained in applicant's file, applicant asserts that the basis was missing drill formations. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, it is likely that applicant's PTSD contributed to applicant missing drill. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the unsatisfactory participation basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and the board-accepted basis of separation - unsatisfactory participation. Thus, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends never being informed of the imminent discharge were considered. 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 fully outweighing the applicant's unsatisfactory participation basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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. (4) The applicant contends being successful and a productive citizen; maintaining employment; recently being promoted to a supervisor position; purchasing a home; and maintaining a high credit score. 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. 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 PTSD mitigated the basis for separation. c. The Board determined the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD diagnosis outweighed the applicant's unsatisfactory participation, the accepted basis for separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of unsatisfactory participation - which the Board found in applicant's records and used as the accepted basis for separation since the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge are not known due to the absence of the separation packet. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as there were no Reasons/SPD Codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. (3) The RE code will not change, as there were no RE-codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002244 1