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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason and reentry (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during the five years of service in the Army the applicant has accomplished a great deal as a Soldier. The applicant was never in any trouble and completed all assigned tasks. The last seven months in the Army the applicant was going through many issues in the applicant’s personal life and the applicant made an impulsive decision which the applicant regrets to this day. This isolated incident does not define who the applicant is as a person or a Soldier. The applicant is in the process of joining the New York Police Department (NYPD) or being granted a second chance to return to military service. The applicant was an E-4 working on being promoted to sergeant. The applicant has many experiences and an abundance of knowledge to offer the new generation of Soldiers entering the military. The applicant’s goal is to become a noncommissioned officer. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 2 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 July 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent without leave from 10 January to 26 March 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 July 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 August 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 April 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantry / 5 years, 1 month, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 May 2010 – 28 April 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (1 April 2011 – 25 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 10 January 2015; and From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 10 February 2015. Military Police Report, dated 12 February 2015, reflects the applicant was under investigation for: desertion. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 2 April 2015, reflects the applicant went AWOL on 10 January 2015 and surrendered to the unit on 26 March 2015. FG Article 15, dated 19 May 2015, for being absent without leave (between 10 January and 26 March 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months (suspended); and an oral reprimand. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 months, 17 days (AWOL, 10 January 2010 – 26 March 2015) / Surrendered j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 June 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any chapter action 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 post-traumatic stress disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, and alcohol abuse. The screening came back with sub-clinical responses. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being in the process of joining the NYPD or being granted a second chance to return to the military. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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 a narrative reason and reentry code change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and the separation code is “JKN.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends personal issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 June 2015, 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 MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The AMHRR 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 being in the process of joining the NYPD or being granted a second chance to return to the military. 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. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Concussion. (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, and a Concussion existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and a Concussion. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD, which is a mitigating BH condition for going AWOL given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance. Applicant already has an Honorable discharge. It is recommended that applicant’s RE code remain a 3 due to the service connection for PTSD being service limiting. (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 AWOL basis for separation for the aforementioned reason. However, relief is not warranted as the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge. The applicant’s PTSD mitigates but does not wholly excuse the applicant’s misconduct there for it does not outweigh the narrative reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that while the applicant’s PTSD outweighs the basis for separation, the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Minor Infractions) and thus, no further relief is warranted. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (2) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code, as the applicant’s PTSD is service limiting. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (3) The applicant contends personal issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant contends being in the process of joining the NYPD or being granted a second chance to return to the military. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. 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 as the medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. 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 AR20210002318 1