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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, because of an attack on 3 July 2013, the applicant was the only medic on the ground, and there was no one to verify the condition of the applicant’s stability. The required assessment did not come until two and a half years later. It caused significant damage to the credibility of the applicant’s character, the regularity of life and the applicant’s continuance of developing a career in the US Army. Not to mention the void of not being given the full honor of the time and contributions to the Global War on Terrorism by being honored with the prestigious Purple Heart. If the incident in 2013 never took place, the applicant’s decline in health, character, and performance would have never gone any lower than excellent. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 February 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: Disability, Combat Related / AR 635-40, Chapter 4 / SEA / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 29 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: Based on the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. ADRB Proceedings AR20170003518, dated 10 April 2018, changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, minor infractions. ABCMR Proceedings AR20190006942, dated 21 December 2020, later granted an upgrade to Honorable and the suspended Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings be considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 19 August 2021, the applicant was released from active duty because of a physical disability and granted retirement effective 29 April 2016. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On divers occasions between on or about 24 June 2015 and on or about 30 October 2014, the applicant failed to be at the appointed place of duty; On or about 10 August 2015, the applicant was disrespectful toward a Noncommissioned Officer; On or about 6 August 2015, the applicant was disrespectful toward a Commissioned Officer; On or about 23 July 2015 and on or about 17 July 2015, the applicant was derelict in the duties; On or about 14 July 2015, the applicant to obey a lawful order; On or about 13 July 2015, the applicant was found asleep while on duty; On or about 4 November 2014, the applicant made a false official statement to a Commissioned Officer; and, On or about 20 October 2014, the applicant was found drunk while on duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: The initiating commander recommended Honorable, and the intermediate commanders recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 November 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 May 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / some college / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 4 years, 11 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 May 2011 – 9 May 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 January 2013 – 12 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CMB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 December 2014, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 20 October 2014; and, on or about 20 October 2014, the applicant was found drunk while on duty. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $1,017 pay per month for two months; $508 pay per months for two months, suspended; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. CG Article 15, dated 3 August 2015, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 25 June 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $404 pay, suspended; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and oral reprimand. Criminal Investigation Law Enforcement Report, dated 7 April 2016, reflects the office was notified by an anonymous source who stated they believed the applicant was affiliated with a gang called “Bloods”. The “Bloods” are primarily, though not exclusively African American street gang founded in Los Angeles, California. They are identified by the red color worn by their members and by particular gang symbols, including distinctive hand signs. The Source stated the applicant informed them the applicant was an active member of the “Bloods”. The Source identified the applicant as the poster and person within a YouTube video called “Flamed Up.” A review of the applicant’s Facebook account showed the applicant in a red color shirt which could identify the applicant’s loyalty to the “Bloods.” A copy of the photograph was saved to a CD and attached to this memorandum. A review of video called “Famed up” (Flamed up meaning a Blood word for a person or an item which wears a lot of red) shows the applicant taking the name of Slick Breeze and expressing devotion to the “Bloods.” A copy of the video was saved to a CD and attached to this memorandum. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 27 July 2015, the applicant noted in the comments section: Anxiety disorder, insomnia, sleep apnea, and depression. The applicant was being seen by BH 3 times a week. The applicant provided a copy of Initial Evaluation of Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury (I-TBI) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, which reflects on 16 June 2015, the applicant was diagnosed with Posttraumatic headaches. On 17 August 2015, history of blast exposure with subsequent dizziness confusion and headaches. Diagnosis: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and TBI. Unfit for deployment and disposition via medical MEB due to medical fitness. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 August 2015, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It was noted, Soldier has Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The condition and problems presented by this Soldier, in the opinion of this examiner and warrants disposition through medical channels IAW Chapter 3032, AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness. Chapter 3-32 states: The causes of referral to an MEB are as follows: a. Persistence or recurrence of symptoms sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization; or b. Persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitation limitations of duty or duty in protected environment; or c. Persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance. Soldier has received treatment for this condition since 2014 and it is the opinion of this examiner adequate trial of treatment for this Soldier has been exhausted at this time and the Soldier will not be returned to full-duty within a reasonable amount of time. This Soldier is motivated for behavioral health treatment and command should accommodate the current treatment for PTSD. At this time Soldier is deemed unfit for deployment. If you do not concur with these recommendations, DOD Directive 6490.1 “Mental Health Evaluations of Members of the Armed Forces,” 1 October 1997, reference (a), requires you to notify your next senior commanding officer within two business days explaining your decision to act against medical advice regarding administrative management of this individual. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; deployment orders; witness statements; healthcare assessment; purple heart consideration letter; NATO Medal certificate; 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 sets forth 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. e. Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 4, establishes the policies and procedures for separating a Soldier. The Physical Evaluation Board’s (PEB) determines fitness for purposes of Soldiers retention, separation or retirement for disability under 10 USC chapter 61, or separation for disability without entitlement to disability benefits under other than 10 USC Chapter 61. The PEB also makes certain administrative determinations that may have benefit implications under other provisions of law. Chapter 5 addresses the standards for the PEB’s adjudicative determinations. 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 “SEA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 4, for disability, combat related, IDES, Mandatory retirement resulting from physical disability incurred in combat related operations or in a designated combat zone. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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, 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 they should have been awarded the purple heart. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does 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. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and TBI. The applicant provided a copy of Initial Evaluation of Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury (I-TBI) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, which reflects on 16 June 2015, the applicant was diagnosed with Posttraumatic headaches. On 17 August 2015, reflects a history of blast exposure with subsequent dizziness confusion and headaches. Diagnosis: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and TBI. Unfit for deployment and disposition via medical MEB due to medical fitness. The Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 20 August 2015, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It was noted, Soldier has Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The condition and problems presented by this Soldier, in the opinion of this examiner and warrants disposition through medical channels IAW Chapter 3032, AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness. The separation authority considered the MSE. 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, TBI, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD, TBI, Anxiety, and an Adjustment Disorder. Applicant’s PTSD is also service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s BH conditions provide partial mitigation for the misconduct that originally led to separation, but applicant already has an HD and in August 2021, the applicant’s narrative reason was changed to physical disability. As such, applicant’s discharge appears appropriate at this time and no changes are recommended by the Board’s Medical Advisor. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, Anxiety, and an Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – dereliction of duty, disrespect, failure to report, failure to obey a lawful order, drunk on duty, sleep on duty, and making a false official statement – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. (2) The applicant contends they should have been awarded the purple heart. 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. (3) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and TBI. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant is diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The current characterization of service is honorable, there is no further relief available with respect to characterization. The current narrative reason for separation is Disability, Combat Related, no further relief is available. 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 determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a prior ADRB has upgraded the discharge with a Character of Honorable, therefore no further relief is available. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 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 AR20210002351 1