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, being punished multiple times for one offense. It is unfair to serve over four years, including a year in Iraq, while being denied the GI Bill. The applicant was involved in a hit-and-run accident for which the applicant was punished in civilian court, received a Field Grade Article 15, and was chaptered out. The applicant was an exemplary Soldier until the incident. The applicant is in a homeless veteran program while enrolled in a combat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) program. The applicant enlisted as an Infantryman and was attending the Special Operations Preparatory Course but was disqualified from the course for breaking curfew and being intoxicated. While waiting for the next assignment, the applicant received a charge of driving under the influence (DUI). The information was forwarded to the applicant’s gaining unit, but the first sergeant decided the applicant would not be punished. The applicant was involved in multiple alcohol related incidents before the deployment but was not punished. The applicant deployed to Iraq in October 2009. The applicant was involved in two roadside bombings and was concussed. The applicant thrived while in Iraq and returned to Fort Benning in September 2010. The applicant also thrived at Fort Benning while completing daily activities and competitions but was intoxicated while performing the duties. The applicant was not drinking on the weekdays anymore, but the drinking escalated on the weekends. The applicant believed admitting to having PTSD was a sign of weakness and drinking helped the applicant cope with the PTSD and other mental issues. In 2011, the applicant received orders for the 82nd Airborne Division, but severely injured the right ankle and was prescribed Percocet. The applicant out-processed Fort Benning while simultaneously obtaining a slot to try out for Special Forces. Approximately two weeks before leaving, the applicant and a friend from the platoon were involved in an accident. The friend was driving the vehicle because the applicant was intoxicated, but the friend later convinced the applicant to drive. The applicant did not know another car was involved in the accident because the other car had driven away. The applicant and the friend panicked and fled the scene. The applicant’s orders to Fort Bragg were cancelled, and the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15. The applicant was sentenced in civilian court for reckless driving, leaving the scene, and following too close, but no DUI. The applicant received excessive fines totaling $3,714. The Sergeant Major received a DUI and all punishments for Soldiers who received DUIs were withdrawn, with the exception of the applicant’s punishment because technically, the applicant did not receive a DUI. The applicant was coerced to agreeing to not having PTSD or an alcohol problem because the applicant was not going to receive any assistance. The applicant was discharged from the service. The applicant further describes the post-service struggles with PTSD, depression, alcohol, drugs, suicidal ideations, losing the family, becoming homeless, maintaining employment, the law, and receiving veterans’ benefits. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 February 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: NIF / The Commander’s Report states the specific, factual reasons for action recommended: Soldier caused an accident in Lagrange, GA in which Soldier was driving while intoxicated. Soldier showed up to work hours later and was charged with wrongful previous overindulgence with a .127 blood alcohol level. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 133 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 4 years, 1 month d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 October 2009 – 28 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CIB, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 2 September 2011 – 17 November 2011 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: State of Georgia Traffic Crash Report, dated 2 September 2011, reflects the applicant was driving a vehicle with a passenger in the vehicle. The applicant was driving the vehicle erratically and struck another vehicle. The applicant was found the next day and admitted to being under the influence of alcohol and apparently falling asleep and did not intentionally strike the other vehicle. The applicant was cited for following too closely, reckless driving, and hit and run / leaving the scene of an accident. Final Disposition, The Probate Court, dated 18 October 2011, reflects the applicant was cited for following too closely, with accident; reckless driving; and failed to stop at accident with injury / damage. The applicant was sentenced to pay $260 in restitution; $2655 in fines; 24 months in jail, to be served on probation. Field Grade Article 15, dated 17 November 2011, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk and did thereby cause said vehicle to injure K. V. (2 September 2011) and as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties (2 September 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,061 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 December 2011, 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) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. The applicant provided a copy of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania court document, undated reflecting the applicant was charged with burglary; criminal trespassing-break into structure; institutional vandalism of an education facility; criminal mischief – damage to property; and false identification to law enforcement officer. The offenses were committed on 11 February 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Adult Preventive and Chronic Care Flowsheet, onset dates between 25 March 2008 and 17 May 2011, reflects the applicant’s chronic illnesses include alcohol intoxication, in remission, and alcohol abuse. The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center medical records, dated 21 October 2016, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, rule out major depression; alcohol and stimulant abuse, in early remission. The applicant recently completed the inpatient substance abuse program. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; military service documents; medical documents; Article: Homeless man accused of breaking into Bensalem school; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania court documents; Community supervision Service Probation Information Sheet; Georgia Department of Public Safety Diagram of Accident; electronic mail messages; and certificates of completion; VA medical documents. 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 a 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 contends PTSD and other mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, rule out major depression; alcohol; and stimulant abuse, in early remission. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documents to show the applicant was diagnosed with in-service alcohol intoxication, in remission, and alcohol abuse. The record reflects the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 12 December 2011, which indicates 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) with negative results. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends being punished multiple times for one incident. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was found guilty by civilian court for following too closely, with accident; reckless driving; and failing to stop at accident with injury / damage. The applicant was found guilty by Article 15 for driving while drunk and incapacitation for the proper performance of duties because of overindulgence in intoxicating liquor. The applicant was administratively separated from the service based on the misconduct. The applicant contends being coerced into admitting the applicant did not have PTSD or an alcohol issue because the applicant was not going to receive any assistance since the applicant was required to clear post. The AMHRR does not contain and documentation to show the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while in-service. The applicant’s medical records indicate that the applicant was referred to ASAP in February 2009 and discharged after successfully completing the program in August 2009. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. The record 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 an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD existed during the applicant’s military service based on the VA 70% service-connected rating for combat-related PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD partially mitigates the applicant’s DUI offenses as there is a nexus between PTSD and self- medication with substances. However, the Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant’ DUI does not mitigate the applicant’s decision to drive or flee the scene of the DUI related accident that caused injury to another driver. (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 partially mitigated the applicant’s DUI offense, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the severity of the applicant’s DUI offense as the applicant fled the scene of an accident after hitting another car and injuring the driver. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD partially mitigated the applicant’s DUI offense, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the severity of the applicant’s DUI offense as the applicant fled the scene of an accident after hitting another car and injuring the driver. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s PTSD and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted based on the severity of the applicant’s DUI offense. (2) The applicant contends being punished multiple times for one incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on finding no evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant other than the applicant’s statement of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capacious manner, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable as the applicant’s offenses occurred off post, which can lead to military and civilian adjudications. (3) The applicant contends being coerced into admitting the applicant did not have PTSD or an alcohol issue because the applicant was not going to receive any assistance since the applicant was required to clear post. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted because the applicant’s official medical records do not reflect that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while in-service. Further, applicant’s medical records do reflect that the applicant was referred to ASAP in February 2009 and discharged after successfully completing the program in August 2009. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable as the Board found insufficient evidence that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (4) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. The Board considered this contention but determined that there is insufficient evidence that would support this contention. Even so, the alleged outcome of similar offenses cannot be determined without knowing the complete facts and circumstances surrounding each case. 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 determined that the assertion alone did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of an impropriety or inequity of the applicant’s discharge. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, including the applicant’s homelessness and quality of service 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 fleeing the scene of an accident-causing injury to the driver, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and other veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 after applying liberal consideration of all the evidence because, while the applicant’s PTSD partially mitigated the applicant’s DUI offense, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the severity of the applicant’s DUI offense as the applicant fled the scene of an accident after hitting another car and injuring the driver. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions that the applicant was punished multiple times for one incident, that the applicant was coerced into not admitting that the applicant had PTSD or alcohol, and that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged and found that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a discharge upgrade. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding the applicant’s good service, including the applicant’s PTSD and found that the severity of the applicant’s fleeing the scene of a car accident involving an injured driver does not outweigh the applicant’s discharge. 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 AR20210002315 1