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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in 2009, suffering from an injury on duty which led to the applicant being unable to deploy with the unit. The applicant fell into a depression, which altered the applicant’s perception of life. The applicant was injured at Fort Hunter Liggett, in 2009, and it had a huge impact on the applicant’s body. The applicant went through eight months of hard training at Fort Huachuca, AZ, and suffered an injury in training, but made it out. The training was followed by hardcore training for deployment, which the applicant suffered another injury, and it messed with the applicant’s mind. The applicant tried to perform the duties as a Soldier, but the injury and mental depression hindered the applicant’s efforts. The applicant is ready to have their life back and questions what young fresh graduate of an intelligence school would not want to be in the Army? The applicant loved the job, but never had the opportunity to perform it fully. The applicant would like to attend school to obtain a better job to provide for the family, obtain medical benefits, and achieve success. 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 September 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 June 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35M10, Human Intelligence Collector / 3 years, 3 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 18 June 2008 – 5 February 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided MEE Memorial Hospital Discharge Summary, dated 30 July 2009, which reflects the applicant was admitted on 29 July 2009 for left chest pain, lightheadedness, and lower extremity weakness. The applicant was diagnosed with musculoskeletal chest pain and low thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH). Periodic Health Assessment (USAR & ARNG), dated 3 August 2009, mental health portion of the assessment, reflects the applicant was referred to the Primary Care Manager because the applicant was discouraged, overwhelmed since preparing to deploy. The applicant believed the applicant was prepared to deploy emotionally but hoped there was more time to adjust. The applicant had recent family issues and the applicant was hospitalized because of a serious illness. The provider recommended the applicant follow up with primary care for chest wall contusion and to request counseling for emotional concerns as soon as possible. Medical Record, dated 24 August 2009, reflects health history reports chest wall contusion with bruised chest muscles occurring on 29 July 2009 while on military duty. Turret end of gun in vehicle repeatedly hit chest and the applicant had pain and passed out when in physical training and was transported to the emergency room. The applicant provided Developmental Counseling Form, dated 24 October 2009, in regard to ensuring the applicant received the proper medical and mental health counseling for drug overdose which occurred the month before. Orders 11-261-00037, dated 18 September 2011 indicate the applicant was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant provided Liles Counseling, LLC letter, dated 25 June 2012, reflects the applicant was seen by licensed professional counselors for counseling on various dates. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Physical Profile, dated 9 August 2009, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Depression. Physical Profile, dated 24 August 2009, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Depression and Poor Vision. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Orders – Awarded Military Occupational Specialty; Liles Counselling PLLC letter; medical documents; Developmental Counseling Form. 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 11-261-00037, dated 18 September 2011. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends depression because of various injuries suffered during training, affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service depression. The AMHRR reflects the applicant underwent a periodic health assessment, which referred the applicant to a primary care physician for chest wall contusion and to request counseling for emotional concerns as soon as possible. The record shows the applicant received two Physical Profiles for depression. 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 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: Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant received two profiles while on active duty for Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s depression could mitigate the applicant’s discharge, however, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s depression actually mitigates the applicant’s discharge because the applicant’s official records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge and the applicant did not provide any evidence of the basis of the applicant’s separation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board Medical Advisor is unable to determine if the applicant’s depression mitigates the applicant’s discharge. (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 depression could outweigh the applicant’s discharge, the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s depression actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s depression outweighs the applicant’s discharge b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends depression because of various injuries suffered during training, affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The Board determined that, while the applicant’s depression could outweigh the applicant’s discharge, the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s depression actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s depression outweighs the applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and 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. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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, because while the applicant’s depression could outweigh the applicant’s discharge, the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s depression actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s depression outweighs the applicant’s discharge. The Board was unable to consider the totality of the applicant’s record due to insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant relating to the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s discharge. 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 Other Than Honorable discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting an upgrade to General discharge or meritorious service warranting 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, 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 AR20210002383 1