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, having realized what the applicant had done was out of character for a military member with over 16 years of service, the applicant sought and received treatment for the decisions leading to the discharge from the Army. The applicant was respected and received many awards and decorations. The OEF deployment was difficult for the applicant because of constantly worrying about the family with the spouse not being supportive. Upon returning and finding the spouse running with a new crowd, the children became involved with the Department of Human Services. Not reaching out for help and trying to handle the issues led the applicant to numb all the feelings by self-mediating, followed by several AWOL incidents and encounters with the law. The applicant wishes the circumstances surrounding the personal and professional life had not collided the way it did. The applicant believes with the tools acquired from life experiences; the outcome would have been much different. The applicant has been sober for over 20 months and sought help for the mental health issues and currently maintains three separate employments. The applicant currently has several mentors to lean upon for counseling and advice when things get tough. They have helped the applicant put life back together and restored a positive outlook. The applicant’s children were placed in the custody of the grandparents in April 2014 when the applicant was discharged. The applicant desires to obtain employment to take care of the family. The applicant requests the Board’s consideration grants an appropriate discharge upgrade. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 February 2023, and by a 3-2 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 April 2014 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: 4 February 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / two years of college / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 16 years, 3 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 August 1997 – 1 April 2001 / HD RA, 2 April 2001 – 29 July 2002 / HD RA, 30 July 2002 – 16 December 2003 / HD RA, 17 December 2003 – 19 October 2005 / HD RA, 20 October 2005 – 3 February 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Alaska, SWA / Kuwait (1 January 2003 – 1 July 2003); Afghanistan (9 March 2010 – 7 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-7, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, KCM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2010 – 30 September 2011 / Fully Capable 1 October 2011 – 30 September 2012 / Fully Capable 1 October 2012 – 6 August 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Twenty Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows (Note: where there is a DFR status, charges were preferred): From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 15 May 2013; From to “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 17 May 2013; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 22 May 2013; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 3 June 2013; From “PDY” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective 8 July 2013; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 10 July 2013; From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 7 August 2013; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 8 August 2013; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 6 September 2013; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 7 October 2013 (DFR Packet with Charge Sheet); From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 21 October 2013; From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 21 October 2013; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 22 October 2013; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 23 October 2013; From “AWOL” to “DFR,” effective 24 October 2013 (DFR Packet with Charge Sheet); From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 6 November 2013; From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 11 November 2013; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 7 January 2014; From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 1 April 2014; and From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 3 April 2014. El Paso County Sheriff’s Office Booking Report, dated 21 October 2013, reflects the applicant was charged with the following: Disregard/Fail / Stop or Yield / Intersection Driving Under Restraint (Warrant Numbers 13T2228 and 13T7097) Driving Under the Influence Careless Driving Without Injury Owner Without Insurance on Public Highway i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 140 days: AWOL, 15 May 2013 – 17 May 2017, for 3 days / Returned to Military Control; AWOL, 22 May 2013 – 3 June 2013, for 13 days / Returned to Military Control; CCA, 8 July 2013 – 10 July 2013, for 3 days / Returned to Military Control; CCA, 7 August 2013 – 8 August 2013, for 2 days / Returned to Military Control; AWOL, 6 September 2013 – 22 October 2013, for 47 days / Apprehended by Civil Authorities; AWOL, 24 October 2013 – 6 November 2013, for 14 days / Surrendered to Military Control; and CCA, 11 November 2013 – 7 January 2014, for 58 days) / Returned to Military Control. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and three third- party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant maintains employment and has been sober for over 20 months after seeking and receiving treatment. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the behavior which led to the discharge was out of character for a military member with over 16 years of service, who was respected and received many awards and decorations. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused 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. The applicant contends not reaching out for help and trying to handle the issues that led the applicant to numb all the feelings by self-mediating, and engaging in several AWOL incidents and encounters with the law. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of any behavioral health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence of behavioral health diagnosis, other than the applicant’s statement and a third-party statement indicating the applicant’s participation in group and individual therapy on a weekly basis, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant contends being sober for over 20 months, sought help for the mental health issues, and maintains three separate employments. 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 contends an upgrade would allow better employment, which would enable the applicant to care for the family. The Army Discharge Review Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good conduct and accomplishments after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Concussion, and Major Depression. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not reflected in the applicant’s AMHRR. However, the Board accepted bases for the applicant discharge as reflected in applicant’s medical records as DUI (x2), driving under restraint and without insurance, wrongful use of cocaine, multiple AWOLs, wrongful use of morphine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine, possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and child neglect/abuse. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Concussion, and Major Depression existed during the applicant’s service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD/Major Depressive Disorder mitigates the applicant’s Board accepted offenses of DUI (x2), drug related offenses, and multiple AWOLS given the nexus between PTSD/Major Depression and self-medicating with substances and the nexus between PTSD and avoidance. However, none of the applicant’s above-mentioned behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of child abuse/neglect or driving under restraint or without insurance because there is no natural sequela between any of applicant’s behavior health conditions and this misconduct. (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, while the applicant’s PTSD/Major Depressive Disorder mitigates the applicant’s DUI (x2), drug related offenses, and multiple AWOLS, the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Concussion, and Major Depression do not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – child abuse/neglect or driving under restraint or without insurance. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the behavior which led to the discharge was out of character for a military member with over 16 years of service, who was respected and received many awards and decorations. 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. The applicant’s behavior brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing child abuse/neglect and driving under restraint or without insurance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant neglecting/abusing children is not an acceptable response, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends not reaching out for help and trying to handle the issues led the applicant to numb all the feelings by self-medicating, and several AWOL incidents and encounters with the law. The Board considered this contention and determined, by majority vote, that no further relief was warranted based on the serious nature of the applicant’s offense involving child abuse/neglect or driving under restraint or without insurance and that the Board partially mitigated the applicant’s offenses based on the applicant’s behavioral health conditions as stated in paragraph 9a(3), above. (4) The applicant contends being sober for over 20 months, sought help for the mental health issues, and maintains three separate employments. The Board majority considered this contention but determined that with the evidence available, no relief is warranted. The Board recommends the applicant request a telephonic personal appearance for reconsideration of the circumstances surrounding the discharge and to provide the Board an assessment the applicant’s current situation and progress. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow better employment, which would enable the applicant to care for the family. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good conduct and accomplishments after leaving the Army. The Board considered this contention and determined that the serious nature of the medically unmitigated misconduct outweighed the applicant’s supporting statements. c. The Board majority 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 despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board. While the applicant’s PTSD/Major Depression mitigated the offenses as stated in paragraph 9b(3) above, the applicant’s PTSD/Major Depression did not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – child abuse/neglect or driving under restraint or without insurance. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002258 1