1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the offense for which the applicant was discharged, was extremely inaccurate and very disheartening. The leadership stated the applicant was in possession of spice which was false. The applicant was bullied by SGT D. S. and even attacked by SGT D. S. It is the applicant’s belief the spice in question belonged to SGT D. S. and was planted in an attempt to get rid of the applicant. SGT D. S. was later found guilty of harassing lower enlisted Soldiers, as well as using multiple drugs including spice. SGT D. S. was detained by CID and MP’s and sent to serve time in Leavenworth. The applicant strongly believes the applicant did not have a fighting chance to excel as an exemplary Soldier because of corrupt and toxic leadership at the time. The applicant begged on several occasions to be transferred anywhere, because of the circumstances. The applicant has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations to aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans. The applicant was nominated and awarded “The Hometown Heroes Award” from a local radio station Star 94, courtesy of Carriage Nissan for outstanding service to the veteran community and received a car. The applicant has founded a nonprofit organization “Helping Homeland Heroes” to help further aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, as well help combat PTSD and veteran suicide, based on the applicant’s own personal experience. This has been extremely difficult for the applicant and the family. The applicant comes from a very long line of highly honorable and decorated distinguished service members, to which the applicant believes the applicant failed them and tarnished the applicant’s name. The applicant was scared to reach out and tell the story. The applicant was an Airborne Infantryman and in fear of reaching out for help was a sign of weakness, and something they do not do. The applicant states the DD Form 214 is missing a Marksman Qualification Badge and Distinguished Rifleman Badge. The applicant also helped save the life of a fellow battle buddy who lived across the hall in the barracks when the battle buddy cut both wrist in a suicide attempt, without recognition. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 February 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 22 October 2013, the applicant wrongfully solicited PV2 J. D. W. to urinate in a bottle to help pass a urinalysis, said conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. This was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On or about 22 October 2013, the applicant wrongfully solicited PV2 R. T. D. to urinate in a bottle to help pass a urinalysis, said conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. This was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Having received a lawful command from CPT J. P. B., a superior commissioned officer, then known to the applicant to be the superior commissioned officer, to not enter or be present in an establishment serving or selling alcohol, or words to that effect, did at or near Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, on or about 23 November 2013, willfully disobey the same. This was in violation of Article 90, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 February 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 October 2011 / 5 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / High School Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided a copy of FG Article 15, dated 10 December 2013, for wrongfully soliciting PV2 J. D. W. to urinate in a bottle to help the applicant pass a urinalysis on or about 22 October 2013 and wrongfully soliciting PV2 R. T. D. to urinate in a bottle to help the applicant pass a urinalysis. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, suspended; forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant provided a copy of Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 24 January 2014, which reflects the suspended portion of the punishment was vacated because the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from Captain J. P. B., to not purchase, possess, or consume any alcoholic beverages, on or about 17 December 2013. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 12 March 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Law Enforcement Investigation (MA), effective 9 September 2013 and Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 15 January 2014. The applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-1 effective 10 December 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant provided page three of Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 October 2013, which reflects the applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative proceedings. It was noted: This Service Member meets medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and does not warrant disposition through medical channels. In other words, the SM does not meet criteria for MEB/PEB. SM screened positive for PTSD on the screen. SM’s symptoms were further assessed, and SM’s symptoms were related to current unit stressors and chapter proceedings (for which the SM denied all charges/offenses) rather than life threatening events. Thus, it was determined the SM does not meet criteria for PTSD, however the SM is following up in the EBH clinic for supportive therapy to improved current coping abilities. SM screened negative for TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; VA Form 21-0781; separation documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations to aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, the applicant was nominated and awarded “The Hometown Heroes Award” from a local radio station, due to outstanding service to the veteran community and received a car. The applicant has also founded a nonprofit organization “Helping Homeland Heroes” to help further aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, as well help combat PTSD and veteran suicide based on the applicant’s personal experience. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being bullied and attacked by an NCO and believes the NCO planted spice in order to get rid of the applicant. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends not having a chance to excel as an exemplary Soldier because of the corrupt and toxic leadership. 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’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. 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 shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 22 October 2013, which indicates the applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative proceedings. It was noted: This Service Member meets medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and does not warrant disposition through medical channels. In other words, the SM does not meet criteria for MEB/PEB. SM screened positive for PTSD on the screen. SM’s symptoms were further assessed, and SM’s symptoms were related to current unit stressors and chapter proceedings (for which the SM denied all charges/offenses) rather than life threatening events. Thus, it was determined the SM does not meet criteria for PTSD, however the SM is following up in the EBH clinic for supportive therapy to improve current coping abilities. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations to aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, the applicant was nominated and awarded “The Hometown Heroes Award” from a local radio station, for outstanding service to the veteran community and received a car. The applicant has also founded a nonprofit organization “Helping Homeland Heroes” to help further aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, as well help combat PTSD and veteran suicide based on the applicant’s personal experience. 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 applicant contends the DD Form 214 is missing a Marksman Qualification Badge and Distinguished Rifleman Badge. The applicant’s requested changes to the DD Form 214 do not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. ? 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: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Adjustment Disorder, ADHD, Chronic PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s MDD, Adjustment Disorder, and ADHD existed during military service. There is no evidence that applicant's post service diagnosis of Chronic PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is no association between any of the applicant’s BH conditions and the misconduct that led to the separation since the applicant’s BH conditions do not impact the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. While there is no evidence the applicant’s post service diagnosed PTSD existed in service. PTSD is not mitigating for the applicant’s solicitation of two Soldiers to urine samples for the applicant as a deliberate planned decision is not part of the sequala of PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD, Adjustment Disorder, or ADHD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – soliciting fellow Servicemembers to provide urine samples for the applicant and disobeying an order from a commissioned officer. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By soliciting fellow Servicemembers to provide a urine sample for the applicant and disobeying an order from a commissioned officer, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends being bullied and attacked by an NCO and believes the NCO planted spice in order to get rid of the applicant, and due to corrupt and toxic leadership the applicant was not able to excel. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion and noted that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to provide merit to the applicant’s claim. The Board further noted that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment within the unit, 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 soliciting urine samples from soldiers, and disobedience is not an acceptable response to dealing with unfair treatment, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. The applicant was found guilty in an Article 15 proceeding of these charges. (3) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant is not service connected for PTSD, and the applicant’s MDD, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder, which existed during service, have no association with the nature of the applicant’s misconduct. After weighing the totality of the evidence, the Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant has worked with several veteran nonprofit organizations to aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, the applicant was nominated and awarded “The Hometown Heroes Award” from a local radio station, for outstanding service to the veteran community and received a car. The applicant has also founded a nonprofit organization “Helping Homeland Heroes” to help further aid and assist homeless and disabled veterans, as well help combat PTSD and veteran suicide based on the applicant’s personal experience. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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 considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the discharge due to the nature of the misconduct. (5) The applicant contends the DD Form 214 is missing a Marksman Qualification Badge and Distinguished Rifleman Badge. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s MDD, Adjustment Disorder, and ADHD did not excuse or mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation – soliciting fellow Servicemembers to provide urine samples for the applicant and disobeying an order from a commissioned officer. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210002330 1