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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason and reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's discharge is inequitable because it was based on disciplinary infractions exacerbated by Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Iraq's combat operational tempo (OPTEMPO), interrupted sleep patterns, medical issues from improvised explosive Devices (lEDs) blast concussions, and immaturity and youthful indiscretion. The administrative separation board was informed the applicant received a rehabilitative transfer, but the applicant was never offered a rehabilitative transfer. In July 2007, the applicant was assigned to the Scout Sniper Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Polk, LA. The unit deployed to Iraq in November 2007. The applicant witnessed a friendly fire incident in December 2007. In February 2008, the applicant and about 30 other Soldiers were reassigned to another brigade. The applicant was assigned as a Designated Marksman, which required the applicant to be loaned out to other units for patrol overwatch. The applicant usually performed this duty during the squad's or platoon's stand down time. This provided limited recuperation sleep. It was standing operating procedure (SOP) for the squad to be basically on 24 hour duty for several days. As a 19 year old, the applicant understands each mission had a significant impact on the applicant. The applicant would have trouble following directions, sleeping, and staying awake after an IED blast. The physician's assistant told the Soldiers if there was not any blood, to suck it up as the effects would go away. Upon returning from deployment, the Soldiers celebrated being alive. Several Soldiers received an Article 15 for excess partying. The applicant was young and made a serious mistake by not heeding to the superiors' warnings. In August 2009, the applicant received notice of the intent to be administratively discharged and was discharged in November 2009, without a rehabilitative transfer and just a few months before the expiration term of service (ETS). After discharge, the applicant learned a Flag, which should have been lifted, prevented the applicant from being promoted or receiving a Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). The applicant noted several discrepancies in the Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), which the unit failed to correct. The applicant learned from the mistakes and lived the Army values since the discharge. The applicant sought civilian psychiatric help for the PTSD issues the applicant previously hidden because of the stigma and received treatment for combat induced PTSD. The applicant divorced the spouse who contributed to the applicant's conduct. The applicant learned a new trade as a Millwright and pursuing certification as a Master Millwright. The applicant has an excellent position with a well-known major company; remarried; had two children; and has not been in any trouble with the work supervisors or law enforcement since the discharge. The applicant's grandparent and parent are retired senior officers. The applicant hoped the applicant had sought the parent's counsel. The applicant desires to re-enlist. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, post service accomplishments, and the applicant's self-asserted PTSD providing partial mitigation of the applicant's basis of separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 August 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 16 April 2008, at or near JSS Masafee, Iraq while on post as a sentinel, the applicant was found sleeping upon the post, a violation of Article 113, UCMJ. On 17 June 2008, at or near JSS Mustafee, Iraq, while on post as a sentinel in the guard tower the applicant was found sleeping upon the post, a violation of Article 113, UCMJ. On 24 November 2008, at or near Muhalla 824, Iraq, while on post as a sentinel the applicant was found sleeping upon the post, a violation of Article 113, UCMJ. On 16 March 2009, the applicant having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Captain R. E. in a safety brief to not drink underage, the applicant failed to obey the same by wrongfully drinking underage, a violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 17 March 2009, the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, a violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On 17 March 2009, the applicant was found drunk while on duty, a violation of Article 86 [sic], UCMJ. On 30 May 2009, the applicant having been restricted to the limits of the battalion footprint did break said restriction, a violation of Article 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 August 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 1 October 2009, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 10 September 2009, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 October 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 February 2007 / 4 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 November 2007 - 15 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 23 May 2008, for at or near JSS Masafee, Iraq, while on post as a sentinel was found sleeping upon the applicant's post (16 April 2008). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 10 days. CG Article 15, dated 30 July 2008, for at or near JSS Mustafee, Baghdad, Iraq, while on post as a sentinel in the guard tower were found sleeping upon the post (17 June 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $352 pay; and extra duty for 14 days. Summarized Article 15, dated 20 November 2008, for at or near FOB Falcon, Baghdad, Iraq, violate a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing pornographic material within the Multi- National Division-Baghdad area of responsibility. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 3 days. FG Article 15, dated 13 December 2008, for at or near Muhalla 824, Iraq, while on post as a sentinel was found sleeping upon the post (24 November 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $673 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Intoxilyzer - Alcohol Analyzer, dated 17 March 2009, reflects the applicant test results as .110 percentage blood alcohol content (BAC). Memorandum for Record, dated 3 April 2009, reflects the circumstances surrounding the applicant drinking underage and drinking while on duty. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 April 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 29 April 2009, for: The applicant failed to obey a lawful order from CPT R. E. in a safety brief to not drink underage (16 March 2009). The applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (17 March 2009). The applicant was found drunk while on duty in violation of Article 112 (17 March 2009). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $784 pay per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Memorandum for Record, dated 8 June 2009, reflects the applicant received a traffic ticket on 30 May 2009, for not being able to present valid proof of insurance for the vehicle and the location was outside the restriction area. FG Article 15, dated 24 July 2009, for breaking restriction (30 May 2009). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 20 days. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 3 November 2009, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA), effective 28 April 2008; was ineligible for reenlistment because of other, prohibitions not otherwise identified (9X); and ETS date: 30 May 2011. 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 Behavioral Health of Central Louisiana Treatment Plan, dated 15 December 2014, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with history of PTSD and anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with continuation sheet; Behavioral Health of Central Louisiana Treatment Plan; five third party character references; Enlisted Record Brief, with annotations. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends learning a new trade as a Millwright and pursuing a certification as a Master Millwright; having an excellent position with a well-known major company; remarrying and having two children; and having no issues with supervisors or law enforcement since the discharge. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-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 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 changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change to rejoin the service. 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 PTSD, anxiety, and blast concussions affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of history of PTSD and anxiety. The Army Military Human Resource Record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 24 April 2009, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends the applicant should have been offered a rehabilitative transfer, but was not, and the administrative separation board was erroneously led to believe the applicant received one. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17, entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, provides a list of chapters and/or paragraphs which must meet the counseling and rehabilitation requirements, which involves a rehabilitative transfer or waiver by the separation authority. Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense is not listed as one of the reasons which would require counseling, a rehabilitative transfer, or a waiver. 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 considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends learning a new trade as a Millwright and pursuing a certification as a Master Millwright; having an excellent position with a well-known major company; remarrying and having two children; and having no issues with supervisors or law enforcement since the discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Anxiety. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant self-asserts PTSD at the time of military service and anxiety. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD, self-medicating with substances, and avoidance, the applicant's self- asserted PTSD should be considered by the Board for the underage drinking, being found drunk while on duty, and the FTR. However, there is no natural sequela between PTSD and sleeping on post or breaking restriction. Finally, a history of concussions nor anxiety as applicant contends would also not mitigate sleeping on post or breaking restriction. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. The remaining misconduct of sleeping while serving as a sentinel and breaking restriction are not outweighed by the applicant's PTSD or Anxiety, as there is no evidence the behaviors were affected by the conditions. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board found this contention valid and voted to upgrade the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) and the separation authority to and AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12a based on the applicant's PTSD providing partial mitigation of the applicant's basis of separation, and outweighing part of the remaining misconduct after considering the totality of the applicant's service record including combat service, post service accomplishments, and the applicant's self-asserted. (2) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted not to change the RE-code from a RE-3, which is a waivable code, due to the mitigating PTSD also being 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 PTSD, anxiety, and blast concussions affected behavior which led to the discharge. 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 given the nexus between PTSD, self-medicating with substances, and avoidance, the applicant's self-asserted PTSD mitigates the underage drinking, being found drunk while on duty, and the FTR. However, there is no natural sequela between PTSD and sleeping on post or breaking restriction. A history of concussions as applicant contends would also not mitigate sleeping on post or breaking restriction. The Board determined an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service and narrative reason for separation was warranted based on the partially mitigated misconduct, as well as the applicant's combat service and post service accomplishments. (4) 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 insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that youthful indiscretion did not outweigh the unmitigated offenses. (5) The applicant contends the applicant should have been offered a rehabilitative transfer, but was not, and the administrative separation board was erroneously led to believe the applicant received one. The Board considered this contention and determined Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17, entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, provides a list of chapters and/or paragraphs which must meet the counseling and rehabilitation requirements, which involves a rehabilitative transfer or waiver by the separation authority. Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense is not listed as one of the reasons which would require counseling, a rehabilitative transfer, or a waiver. Therefore, the partial upgrade was based on the applicant's assertion of PTSD, combat service, and post service accomplishments mitigating or outweighing the majority of the misconduct, and what remains was relatively minor hence the new narrative reason change. (6) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board found this contention valid, and along the applicant's post service accomplishments and self-asserted PTSD, determined an upgrade was warranted. (7) The applicant contends learning a new trade as a Millwright and pursuing a certification as a Master Millwright; having an excellent position with a well-known major company; remarrying and having two children; and having no issues with supervisors or law enforcement since the discharge. The Board found this contention valid, and along the applicant's combat service and self-asserted PTSD, determined an upgrade was warranted. (8) The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the third party statements, but ultimately did not address them due to determining an upgrade was warranted based on the applicant's PTSD, combat service, and post service accomplishments. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's combat service, post service accomplishments, and the applicant's PTSD providing partial mitigation of the applicant's basis of separation, thus warranting a partial upgrade. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) because of the mitigation attributed to the applicant's self- asserted PTSD, the applicant's combat service and post service accomplishments outweighed a portion of the applicant's basis for separation - falling asleep while on post as a sentinel in Iraq, drinking underage, FTR, drunk on duty, and breaking restriction. The misconduct of sleeping while serving as a sentinel and breaking restriction is not mitigated and as such the characterization lacking appropriate merit to warrant an Honorable characterization. Thus partial relief to GD is warranted. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with the corresponding SPD code JKN, under the same pretexts. (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 BH condition is service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General (Under Honorable Conditions) c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002381 1