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 bad conduct. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant enlisted during wartime. The applicant was very intelligent, gifted, and one of the best musicians in the country. The applicant had no behavioral issues, legal issues, drug, or alcohol issues. The applicant was offered a contract in the Military Intelligence field with a $30,000 bonus but turned it down for an Infantry contract with a $4,000 bonus. After initial training, the applicant was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division and deployed to Afghanistan. The applicant served with “The Band of Brothers” between 2010 and 2013, and served in The Surge, Operation Enduring Freedom between 2010 and 2011. During the 12-month deployment, the unit experienced the worst combat and living conditions the war had to offer. The platoon leader, Lieutenant J. L., spoke highly of the applicant at the court-martial proceedings. The applicant was the backbone of the company. The applicant described in detail the applicant’s experiences while deployed. Upon returning home, early signs of PTSD and TBI began to surface. Flashbacks, voices, night terrors, days without sleep, anxiety, family problems, behavioral issues, legal issues, and drug and alcohol issues were the daily normal. The applicant had no respect for authority and made two suicide attempts. It seemed no one was listening to the applicant’s cries for help. The applicant was punished harshly, after giving everything for the country. The applicant extended the enlistment to return to Afghanistan and was selected for Special Forces but was hindered because of psychological problems. Shortly after the unit deployed, the applicant received a special court-martial, a bad conduct discharge, and was confined at Fort Leavenworth by the rear detachment leadership. The applicant was told by the original leadership the applicant would receive an honorable or medical discharge. The new rear detachment leadership told the applicant they were going to make an example out of the applicant. The applicant honestly did not know right from wrong or what PTSD really was, being at war in the mind. During the applicant’s sanity board, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic; anxiety disorder; mood disorder; insomnia; stress because of family issues; and illegal drug use. The applicant should not have been court martialed. The applicant was charged with conspiracy against the government, but the government conspired against the applicant. The applicant’s behavior was because of severe PTSD. There have been Soldiers who bravely served the country, and then were “booted after battle.” The Department of Defense has dealt with cases like the applicant’s in a horrific manner. After being hospitalized for PTSD and receiving weekly therapy, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and provided a service dog. The VA saw the applicant’s service as honorable. The applicant has been unable to maintain a relationship and has been violent to the people the applicant cares about. The applicant is unable to receive survival benefits or the GI Bill. The applicant refrains from all drugs and alcohol; attends regular appointments and group sessions. The applicant is determined to set an example for other combat veterans. The applicant needs the upgrade. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 11 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, dated 19 March 2014, on 20 September 2013, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, Specification: Without authority, was absent without leave from 23 April 2013 to 27 June 2013. Plea. Guilty. Charge II, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ: Specification 1: Did, on 16 April 2013, wrongfully distribute Methylenedioxy-N- Methylamphetamine (MDMA), a schedule I controlled substance. Plea: Guilty. Specification 2: Did on or 16 April 2013, wrongfully possess Methylenedioxy-N- Methylamphetamine (MDMA), a schedule I controlled substance. Plea: Guilty. Specification 5: Did on 17 April 2013, wrongfully possess 1.1 grams of marijuana, more or less. Plea: Guilty. Additional Charge I, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ, Specification: Did on 16 April 2013, conspire with Private (E1) T. J. G. to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the applicant did give Private (E-1) T. J. G. 15 pills of MDMA, a Schedule I controlled substance and the said Private (E-1) T. J. G. did then promise to repay the applicant once Private (E-1) T. J. G. sold the 15 pills of MDMA to a third party. Plea: Guilty. Additional Charge II, in violation of Article 95, Specification: Having been placed in pre-trial confinement in Christian County Jail, by a person authorized to order the applicant into confinement did on 12 August 2013, escape from confinement. Plea: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for six months days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 19 March 2014 / the sentence was approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. The applicant was credited with 81 days of confinement towards the sentence to confinement. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence with the exception of Specification 2 of Charge II, which was set aside and dismissed. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 6 January 2015 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 January 2010 / 4 years, 16 weeks / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by a period of one month on 17 September 2012, giving the applicant a new ETS of: 4 June 2014. The applicant was placed on excess leave for 442 days from 27 November 2013 to 11 February 2015. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 6 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (12 September 2010 – 27 July 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, as described in previous paragraph 3c. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 23 April 2013; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 24 May 2013; From “DFR,” to “PDY,” effective date 11 June 2013; From “PDY” to “CMA” effective date 20 September 2013; and From “CMA” to “PDY,” effective date 27 November 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 6 months, 4 days: AWOL, 23 April 2013 – 8 June 2013 / NIF CMA, 1 July 2013 – 27 November 2013 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Medical Center letter, dated 8 May 2015, which reflects the applicant was under the care of the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Mental Health Clinic for a diagnosis of PTSD since 26 June 2014 because to the service in Afghanistan. The applicant’s first psychiatric treatment occurred with psychiatric hospitalizations in Kentucky when the applicant was stationed at Fort Campbell because of two suicide attempts. The applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and post- concussion syndrome. A review of the court-martial record of trial includes a psychological evaluation of 28 August 2013, which includes a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic. The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center letter, dated 3 August 2015, which reflects the applicant was treated for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 26 August 2015, which reflects the applicant received a pre termination letter, which was mailed to the applicant on 16 June 2015, regarding the applicant’s VA health care benefits. The applicant is placed in a pending status because of the other than honorable conditions discharge. Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 25 April 2016, reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, with major depressive disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; VA medical documents; reenlistment documents; and an excerpt from the court-martial proceedings record of trial. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends refraining from drugs and alcohol and attending regular appointments and group sessions. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. (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) Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA. 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 “JJD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court- martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends PTSD, chronic, and other mental health conditions, affected behavior which led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant provided several medical documents which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, with major depressive disorder; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; post-concussion syndrome; and TBI. The VA rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, with major depressive disorder The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends a sanity board, convened during the court-martial proceedings, diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, chronic. The applicant provided the VA letter which reflects a review of the court-martial record of trial includes a psychological evaluation on 28 August 2013, which included a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic. The AMHRR is void of the court-martial record of trial and/or a Rule of Court-Martial 706 Sanity Board. The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with the mental health issues. 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 applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. 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. The applicant contends refraining from drugs and alcohol and attending regular appointments and group sessions. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), PTSD, and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD, and TBI existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the applicant’s offenses of AWOL and possession of marijuana given the nexus between PTSD and self-medication and avoidance. However, none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of drug distribution, conspiracy to distribute, or escaping from confinement as there is no nexus between the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and these offenses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL and possession of marijuana. The available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD, or TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of MDMA, conspiracy to distribute, and escape from confinement. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD, chronic, and other mental health conditions, affected behavior which led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service- connected disability for PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL, possession of marijuana, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD, or TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of MDMA, conspiracy to distribute, and escape from confinement. (2) The applicant contends a sanity board convened during the court-martial proceedings diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that, despite the applicant’s diagnoses of PTSD, the applicant’s PTSD or other behavioral health conditions do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses distribution of MDMA, conspiracy to distribute, and escape from confinement (3) The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with the mental health issues. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s official record includes contradictory evidence that reflect the applicant received medical treatment including medication prescriptions and related medical appointments between February to September 2013. Thus, the Board found that the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable as there is no evidence that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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. The applicant’s misconduct brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the applicant’s misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veteran benefits, to include educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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 (6) The applicant contends refraining from drugs and alcohol and attending regular appointments and group sessions. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of MDMA, conspiracy to distribute, and escape from confinement 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, though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL and possession of marijuana and MDMA, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD, or TBI outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – distribution of MDMA, conspiracy to distribute, and escape from confinement. 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 Bad Conduct Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranted for an upgrade to General Discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 AR20210002382 1