1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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, being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). On 19 November 2014, the applicant's medical evaluation board proceedings began and there were three primary medical conditions under consideration: lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD), cervical degenerative joint disease, and PTSD. A letter from Dr. R. C., dated 14 January 2014, stated the applicant's current diagnosis and many of the symptoms were related to the applicant's actions. The applicant was an exemplary Soldier, and a noncommissioned officer (NCO), moving up the ranks while receiving awards and badges, to include the Bronze Star for meritorious actions in the combat zone. All the applicant's NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) reflect top markings. The applicant's final NCOER shows a dramatic departure from the applicant's historical performance of excellence and does not truly reflect the person, Soldier, or NCO who served the great country for 16 years. Because of the applicant's overall exemplary performance as a senior NCO and leader of Soldiers, the applicant was not demoted to a lesser grade pay or rank. Brigadier General (BG) H's memorandum, dated 29 January 2015, states BG H. finds the applicant's misconduct was unrelated to any of the medical conditions for which the applicant was undergoing these proceedings. During the overall process, the applicant continued medical treatment for the diagnosed PTSD and other medical conditions. The applicant requests the Army Review Boards Agency review the documentation in accordance with the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum, dated 24 February 2016. The applicant was awarded 100 percent permanent and total for service-connected disabilities by the Department of Veterans Affairs, with an effective date of 19 February 2015. The diagnosis for PTSD is one of the service- connected disabilities. The condition was diagnosed and treated while the applicant was on active duty while serving and defending the country. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the accepted basis for separation - three instances of DUI and disturbing the peace while intoxicated. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2015 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 / The memorandum, dated 29 January 2015, reflects the separation authority accepted the applicant's conditional waiver signed on 15 January 2015, waiving the right to an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 January 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) The separation authority indicated the applicant completed a medical evaluation board (MEB) proceedings, but separation authority found the misconduct was unrelated to any of the medical conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 February 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 36 / 3 Years College / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 13B40, Cannon Crewmember / 16 years, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 February 1999 - 10 April 2001 / HD RA, 11 April 2001 - 18 August 2004 / HD RA, 19 August 2004 - 16 January 2006 / HD RA, 17 January 2006 - 5 February 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (8 July 2002 - 8 January 2003; 9 June 2010 - 29 April 2011); Iraq (3 September 2003 - 2 April 2004; 28 September 2005 - 22 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, BSM, MSM, ARCOM-5, AAM-6, JMUA, MUC, USA/USAF PUC, VUA, ASUA, AGCM-5, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2010 - 1 October 2013 / Among the Best 2 October 2013 - 9 May 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 8 August 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: disturbing the peace (off post) on 2 August 2013. Investigation revealed the applicant started an argument with another patron in inside BJ's Diner, which became verbally abusive, and the applicant told another patron, the applicant would wait for the patron outside and settle the dispute. The applicant told the police the other person was talking negative about the United States and the applicant became offended, when the applicant discovered the other party had a foreign accent. Military Police Report, dated 17 March 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: driving while intoxicated, careless operation, and open container (off post). The applicant submitted an intoxilyzer, with a result of .2219 percent. The applicant ran off the road and struck a sweet gum tree and landed in a ditch. The applicant admitted to drinking five to six beers prior to the crash and taking medication for PTSD within the last 24 hours. The applicant refused to perform any field sobriety tests. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 19 March 2014, reflects the applicant was driving while intoxicated. On 17 March 2014, the applicant was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, careless operation, and open container of alcohol. The applicant was given a breathalyzer which indicated a blood alcohol content of .221 percent. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 24 September 2014, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired. On 20 September 2014, the applicant entered a check point where an officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. The applicant was apprehended and given a breathalyzer which indicated a blood alcohol content of .243 percent, over three times the legal limit. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 19 February 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for Law Enforcement Investigation (MA), effective 17 March 2014 and Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA); and was ineligible for reenlistment because of Involuntary Separation under QMP (9L). The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant provided: Letter, from Dr. R. C., dated 14 January 2014, reflects the applicant had a diagnosed anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, which in many cases was a precursor for PTSD. Many Servicemembers with PTSD and anxiety disorder may resort to using alcohol and drugs to "self- mediate" or to diminish the effects of the symptoms. The provider was unable to make a declarative statement there was a direct causative relationship between the two. Report of Medical Examination, dated 14 April 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: PTSD (severe). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 June 2014, 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 mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. Command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions, if present, when determining final disposition. The applicant was diagnosed with occupational problem (chapter); anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; alcohol dependence; insomnia; and concussion with loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 19 November 2014, the applicant's failed to meet medical retention standards for the diagnosed medical conditions: lumbar DDD; cervical degenerative joint disease; and PTSD. The MEB recommended referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB). The findings and recommendations were approved by the approving authority. A copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 9 June 2015, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD and 30 percent for migraine, 100 percent combined rating. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; medical records, to include MEB; NCOERs; Enlisted Record Brief; separation documents; Carson Memo; and VA Rating Decision. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 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 complete 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 authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent disability, partly for PTSD. The applicant provided several medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with in-service PTSD; occupational problem (chapter); anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; alcohol dependence; insomnia; and concussion with loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes. The applicant provided a mental status evaluation (MSE) reflecting the applicant underwent an MSE on 24 June 2014, which indicates the applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem (chapter); Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified; Alcohol Dependence; Insomnia; and Concussion with loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes. An MEB determined the applicant did not meet medical retention standards for lumbar DDD; cervical degenerative joint disease; and PTSD. The MEB was considered by the separation authority. The VA rated the applicant 70 percent disability for PTSD, 100 percent combined rating. The applicant contends good service, including four combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was in process at the time of separation. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was found medically unfit for PTSD, among other medical conditions by an MEB and the MEB recommended the case be referred to a PEB. The AMHRR contains evidence which reflects the applicant was being processed through the physical disability system. The separation authority reviewed the MEB and determined the misconduct was unrelated to the medical conditions and approved the discharge under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provides when a Soldier is being processed for separation for misconduct the GCMCA may direct, in writing, the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system when action under the UCMJ had not been initiated and it has been determined the Soldiers medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation or, other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. 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, Depression, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety. Additionally, the applicant asserts TBI, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Depression and a concussion 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 although the complete facts and circumstances regarding applicant's separation are not contained in the file, separation appears to be based on multiple incidents of DUI and disturbing the peace while intoxicated. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor that applicant's Alcohol Dependence was worsened by combat-related PTSD given the nexus between PTSD and self-medication with substances. Accordingly, applicant's PTSD provides partial medical mitigation for the multiple alcohol-related incidents of misconduct that led to the separation. (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 accepted basis for separation - three instances of DUI and disturbing the peace while intoxicated - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent disability, partly for PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the accepted basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends good service, including four combat tours. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, and length and quality of service, outweighing the misconduct. (3) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was in process at the time of separation. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD, and length and quality of service, outweighing the misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the PTSD outweighing the accepted basis for separation - three instances of DUI and disturbing the peace while intoxicated - thus warranting an upgrade. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's accepted basis for separation - three instances of DUI and disturbing the peace while intoxicated. 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 the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and the applicant's PTSD though mitigating, is service limiting. 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 AR20210002301 1