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 VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The applicant’s actions leading to the separation resulted from the severity of the PTSD condition. The applicant was diagnosed for signs of PTSD while on active duty but was separated without proper treatment. The PTSD condition had an adverse effect on the discharge. The applicant served three years of honorable service, and for this reason the applicant is requesting an upgrade to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 January 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On four separate occasions on 17 June 3, August, and 8 and 11 November 2013, the applicant stole the following amounts from the Government Services Administration (GSA) Fleet Services credit card: $56; $56.48; $59.01; and $54.55, respectively. On five separate occasions on 6 January, 13 March, 1 April, and 27 and 28 May 2014, the applicant failed to report to the 0630 accountability formations x 4, and a 0900 formation. On two separate occasions on 13 March and 1 April 2014, the applicant made false official statements to SFC P. R. and SSG R. A. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 October 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 6 October 2014, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board as part of an accepted Offer to Plead Guilty, in a Summary Court-Martial proceeding, dated 26 August 2014. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 November 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 August 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / some college / 110 Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 27D20, Paralegal Specialist / 5 years, 6 months, 24 days c. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 April 2009 – 28 August 2012 / HD d. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 August 2010 – 19 April 2011) e. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM, NATOMDL, VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR f. Performance Ratings: 11 January 2013 – 7 June 2013 / Among the Best 8 June 2013 – 7 June 2014 / Marginal g. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 20 August 2014, reflects the applicant offering to plead guilty to the three charges and its specifications, and in pertinent part, to waive the rights to an administrative separation board with the understanding of being discharged with the conditions of a UOTH, and in exchange, to have the charges referred to a Summary Court-Martial, and understanding the rights, agreed to move forward with the Summary Court-Martial. The Offer was accepted on 26 August 2014. h. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None i. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 18 September 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: “Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood,” and “Cluster B Traits” for personality and intelligence disorders. The MSE further reflected the applicant reporting a history of behavioral health treatment starting in October 2013 for anger issues. Report of Medical History, dated 29 September 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder was being followed by Behavioral Health. The applicant provided a copy of a Psychotherapist letter, dated 25 June 2015, reflecting the treatment of the applicant from 19 November 2013 to 21 November 2014, for symptoms of alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, and the applicant continued to experience the symptoms throughout the treatment with moderate improvement. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and cover letter with listed enclosures. 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the actions leading to the separation resulted from the severity of the PTSD condition and the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service “Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood.” The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 September 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends serving three years of honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Acute Reaction to Stress, Adjustment Disorder, Depression and Anxiety. (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 Acute Reaction to Stress, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military 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 given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, there may have been some association between applicant’s PTSD and applicant’s FTRs. However, there is no association between PTSD or any of applicant’s other BH conditions and using a government travel card for unauthorized purchases or making false official statements since none of applicant’s BH conditions interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Acute Reaction to Stress, Adjustment Disorder, Depression and Anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Larceny on multiple occasions, FTRs, and making false official statements – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the actions leading to the separation resulted from the severity of the PTSD condition and the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined an upgrade is not warranted. The applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse using a government travel card for unauthorized purchases or making false official statements. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends serving three years of honorable service. 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. By using a government travel card for multiple unauthorized purchases and making false official statements, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 PTSD, Acute Reaction to Stress, Adjustment Disorder, Depression and Anxiety did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of Larceny on multiple occasions and making false official statements. 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. (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 AR20210002262 1