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 and a change to the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, when the applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army, the applicant was looking for a career. The applicant enjoyed basic training and AIT, but fractured a hip and was unable to graduate from AIT. The fracture was so bad the applicant was confined to a wheelchair. The applicant was very active prior to the enlistment and being confined to a wheelchair was very hard for the applicant. It was difficult for the applicant to watch peers excel in training and moving on to assignments. The applicant was very immature and acted out in ways which were unbecoming of a Soldier. The applicant should have made better choices. While in the Army, the applicant was diagnosed with a depression disorder and anxiety. The applicant is currently receiving partial disability benefits from the VA for PSTD. Looking back now, the applicant can see the mistakes made. The applicant is currently working as a nursing assistant however this is not the career field the applicant wants. The applicant’s goal is to pursue a career in the dental field. The applicant has applied for education benefits through the VA but is not eligible due to the current discharge. An honorable discharge would open avenues for education and VA benefits and afford the applicant the opportunity to make a better life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 October 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: 19 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Received two CG Article 15s and one FG Article 15; for violating Articles 86, 92, 107, and 134 of the UCMJ. Failing to report at the time prescribed to the place of duty; Unauthorized wearing of civilian clothes; Making a false official statement; and, Taking over the counter cold medication in excess of the prescribed dosage for a purpose other than its intended medical purpose. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 December 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 December 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 8 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 6 August 2014, for failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully wearing civilian clothes while in Phase IV, on or about 19 July 2014; and made a false official written statement on or about 22 July 2014. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 12 days. CG Article 15, dated 14 October 2014, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 21 August 2014 and on or about 18 September 2014; failing to obey a lawful order on or about 23 May 2014; and orally communicate certain indecent language on or about 3 September 2014. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $175 suspended for 14 days; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 November 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 20 November 2014, for wrongfully using over the counter cold medication in a manner contrary to its intended medical purpose or in excess of the prescribed dosage. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision, dated 19 August 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for other specified depressive disorder (also claimed as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and sleep disturbance.) The applicant provided a copy of Progress Notes, dated 13 April 2017, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified depressive/anxiety disorder. R/O substance induced. R/O alcohol and cannabis use disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; VA rating decision; medical records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently working as a nursing assistant. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision, dated 19 August 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for other specified depressive disorder (also claimed as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and sleep disturbance.) The applicant provided a copy of Progress Notes, dated 13 April 2017, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified depressive/anxiety disorder. R/O substance induced. R/O alcohol and cannabis use disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 13 November 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant is currently working as a nursing assistant. 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 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 of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Mood Disorder; Adjustment DO with depressed mood (claimed as PTSD) which may mitigate or excuse the applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant’s VA diagnosed Adjustment DO with depressed mood (claimed as PTSD) and Mood Disorder existed during the applicant’s military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant’s positive PTSD screen notwithstanding, further BH evaluation indicates that the applicant does not meet DSM-V criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. Applicant does, however, meet DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of Mood Disorder. The applicant’s positive PTSD screen notwithstanding, further BH evaluation indicates that the applicant does not meet DSM-V criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. Applicant does, however, meet DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of Mood Disorder. Mood Disorder mitigates the applicant’s offense of FTR as there is an association between mood disorders and avoidant behaviors. However, the applicant’s Adjustment DO with depressed mood (claimed as PTSD) and Mood Disorder do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of unauthorized wear of civilian clothes, making a false official statement or taking an OTC medication in excess for a purpose other than its intended medical purpose as the applicant’s Adjustment DO with depressed mood (claimed as PTSD) and Mood DO does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Furthermore, the VA records do not contain a PTSD diagnosis, rather a mood disorder diagnosis and a claim of PTSD. The applicant’s positive PTSD screen notwithstanding, further BH evaluation indicates that the applicant does not meet DSM-V criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. Applicant does, however, meet DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of Mood Disorder. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that, while the applicant’s Mood Disorder mitigates the applicant’s offense of FTR, the applicant’s Mood Disorder; Adjustment DO with depressed mood (or claim of PTSD) does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – unauthorized wearing of civilian clothes, making a false official statement or taking an OTC medication in excess for a purpose other than its intended medical purpose. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. 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 the unauthorized wearing of civilian clothes, making a false official statement or taking an OTC medication in excess for a purpose other than its intended medical purpose, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s repeated misconduct showed a clear pattern, thus the narrative reason for discharge. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant does not hold a PTSD diagnosis by the VA, rather a Mood Disorder and an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. The applicant’s positive PTSD screen notwithstanding, further BH evaluation indicates that the applicant does not meet DSM-V criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. Applicant does, however, meet DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of Mood Disorder. While the applicant’s diagnosed conditions mitigated part of the applicant’s FTR, the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses - wearing unauthorized civilian clothes, making a false statement, and taking over the counter medication in excess outweighs the totality of the applicant’s service record. Therefore, the current characterization and narrative reason for discharge are proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment, as the applicant is currently a nursing assistance and wants to transition into the dental field. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service after applying liberal consideration to all the evidence because, while the applicant’s Mood Disorder mitigates the applicant’s offense of FTR, the applicant’s Mood Disorder; Adjustment DO with depressed mood (claim of PTSD) does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – unauthorized wearing of civilian clothes, making a false official statement or taking an OTC medication in excess for a purpose other than its intended medical purpose. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s behavioral health condition and youth at the time of separation and found insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade due to the nature and frequency of the applicant’s misconduct. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 AR20210002353 1