1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, joining the military to get further in life. The applicant had one more year of college left, studying criminal justice at Sybil State University. The applicant was using financial aid and wanted to finish school. The applicant spoke with a recruiter, who took the applicant through the steps and indicated the military could help the applicant pay for college. The applicant was a 92A, Statistics. After initial entry training, the applicant’s first unit of assignment was at Fort Cross [sic]. The rest of the unit was deployed when the applicant arrived. It was laid back because the unit in the rear would send things over to the unit overseas. The applicant continued to work in the warehouse for approximately two years. Things shifted, and the applicant believed the supervisors began to criticize everything the applicant did. The first thing the applicant received was for working without insurance, but the applicant had insurance but had not received the insurance by 12 am. It became stressful. The applicant’s grandparent passed away, and the applicant’s fiancé cheated on the applicant and left the applicant. The applicant’s sergeant first class (SFC) had changed. The applicant was supposed to transfer out and go to Virginia, but the SFC canceled the paperwork and said the applicant was not Soldier enough to go play basketball. The applicant had not received a counseling statement until the SFC showed up. The applicant went to a friend's engagement party. The applicant was not drunk, but they (police) said the applicant was over the limit, and the applicant received a driving under the influence (DUI) charge while driving off post. The applicant did not let the unit know and hired an attorney. The applicant told the first sergeant (1SG) the applicant wanted to separate from the service because it was becoming too much. The 1SG agreed to process the applicant out of the service but did not tell the applicant anything about the discharge. The applicant did not see the discharge until the day the applicant was out processing. The applicant was surprised but did not look into it. The applicant should have been considered for rehabilitation and treatment for PTSD. The applicant has been working and has been in college for two semesters, with thirteen classes left to attend before graduation. The applicant applied for the Post 9/11 GI Bill, and it only covers 70 percent because of the discharge. The applicant applied to the police academy and was told the applicant needed to have the discharge upgraded to be accepted. The applicant attends Saint Phillips College, pursuing a bachelor's degree. The applicant received benefits for the applicant’s back while in the military, which the applicant injured when the applicant was helping the unit move heavy equipment and moved the back the wrong way. The applicant went to the hospital and was told the applicant had a herniated disc and nerve problems. After a year after being out of the service, the applicant was not taking medicine and was in excruciating pain. The applicant completed the paperwork and was informed the applicant would receive 30 percent disability. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 December 2022, 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: 30 April 2013 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: 5 October 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Some College / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not 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. The applicant’s effective date of pay grade to E-2 was 14 November 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; Personal Affidavit of Military Member; questionnaire; three third party statements. The applicant indicates a legal brief is attached but the application is void of the attachment. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment; pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree; and applying to the police academy. 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’s Army Military Human Resource Record (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 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 led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends harassment by a member of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to 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 the command should have considered the applicant for rehabilitation. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the circumstances which led to the discharge. The applicant indicated a DUI contributed to the discharge. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends being unaware of the type of discharge until the day the applicant was out processing. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 maintaining employment; pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree; and applying to the police academy. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good military service and good conduct 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: The applicant asserts PTSD, 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 asserts PTSD existed at the time of military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s asserted PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s Board accepted basis of separation - DUI as self- medication is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s PTSD actually mitigates the applicant’s DUI as there is insufficient medical evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to support that the applicant currently has any behavioral health conditions. The applicant was not diagnosed in service with any behavioral health conditions, the applicant is not diagnosed or service connected by the VA for any BH conditions, and the applicant has did not provide any medical evidence supporting the applicant’s asserted PTSD or other behavioral health condition. (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 there is insufficient medical evidence to determine that applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD and therefore found that the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s medical unmitigated DUI. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on insufficient evidence in official records or provided by the applicant other than the applicant’s statement, the applicant’s asserted PTSD did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (2) The applicant contends harassment by a member of the chain of command, and family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. The Board considerd this contention and determined the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence to provide merit to the applicant’s assertions, and that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues and problems with members in chain of command, 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 driving with a suspended license and failing to obey is not an acceptable response to dealing with such issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the command should have considered the applicant for rehabilitation and treatment for PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the discharge was proper pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17 as the applicant was discharged for Chapter 14-12c, Serious Misconduct which does not require counseling and rehabilitation prior to separation. (4) The applicant contends being unaware of the type of discharge until the day the applicant was out processing. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority, thus the discharge was proper. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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. (7) The applicant contends maintaining employment; pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree; and applying to the police academy. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted basis of DUI, driving with a suspended license, failure to obey direct orders, and lack of performance. 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 despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence, while the applicant’s asserted PTSD could outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted DUI offense, the Board found that there is insufficient medical evidence to determine that applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD and therefore found that the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s medical unmitigated DUI. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions relating to Command harassment, family issues, and being unaware of the type of discharge and found that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a discharge upgrade. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention regarding the lack of rehabilitation and found that rehabilitation is not required for Chapter 14- 12c separations. 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 Board determined that the discharge is proper and equitable and no discharge upgrade is warranted as the applicant’s DUI fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General Discharge or meritorious service warranting an 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 and the applicant’s PTSD is service limiting. ? 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 AR20210002317 1