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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, joining the Army in 2006 and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in 2012. The applicant was in the Delayed Entry Program while in high school and was more than willing to serve the country. After initial entry training, the applicant was stationed at Fort Drum. The applicant was at Fort Drum for more than a year before deploying to Iraq but felt inadequately trained to face a combat situation. The applicant had just started a family and was leaving behind a spouse and a new born child. This was not an issue because the applicant knew what the applicant signed up for. The applicant was deployed in Iraq as a Combat Engineer, performing route clearances outside the wire daily from 2007 to 2009. During the deployment, the applicant became use to seeing friends being blown up, and the applicant developed a very dark sense of humor about combat. The applicant was accustomed to the daily routine of cleaning and checking the weapons, going to the gym, and going to the chow hall. The applicant lost all regard for garrison customs and society. The trucks the Soldiers used were armored and protected most of the Soldiers from explosions; however, the frequency of the explosions caused several Soldiers to develop ticks and superstitions. The applicant took leave during the deployment, but it is a fog. The applicant’s family said the applicant was distant and reclusive when the applicant visited. The applicant completed the deployment, earning promotions and awards, but did not care. The applicant’s thoughts had become centralized. The applicant had experienced a fair share of explosions, but one was the most unnerving. It was a make-shift bomb buried in the middle of a dirt road next to a canal filled with water. Several buried 155mm rounds were stacked on top, filled with homemade explosives, went off and covered the truck with what became a familiar sensation the applicant can only compare to jumping in water. The applicant experienced some minor injuries, which affect the applicant today, but the applicant was still alive. The applicant cannot target a single event from the deployment which contributed to the applicant’s PTSD, other than the described event, but the applicant could describe more events. It has become difficult for the applicant to care about achieving in the society the applicant fought for. The applicant attempted to work for a few years since leaving the service but did not have the best grasp of it. The applicant is doing the best to find goals to achieve for the family but has this looming thought of dying. The applicant’s combat service clearly affected the applicant’s mental state. The applicant resorted to many substances to try and find a suitable perspective, but the applicant usually ends up abusing the substance. The applicant’s alcohol use led to the discharge after a long honorable service. The applicant planned to make the military a career, but the applicant’s behavior was unacceptable as a Soldier, and the applicant’s physical health was also deteriorating because of the applicant’s habits. The applicant is trying the best to integrate but struggles with being productive. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 November 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 July 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant unlawfully struck Private First Class (PFC) M. M. on the face with a closed fist, between 5 and 6 February 2012. The applicant had sexual intercourse with E. M., a married person not the spouse, on 1 February 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 29 June 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 September 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25S10 7E, SATCOM System Operator-Maintainer / 6 years, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 July 2006 – 4 September 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (5 September 2007 – 22 October 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CAB / The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects award of the GWOTEM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, tried on 14 May 2012, reflects the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, Violating Article 128, UCMJ, Specification 2: Assault consummated by battery between 5 and 6 February 2012. Plea: Not Guilty. Charge II, Violating Article 134, UCMJ, The Specification: Adultery on 1 February 2012. Plea: Guilty. The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to E-1; forfeiture $994 pay (suspended); and restriction for 60 days. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for pending elimination and suspension of favorable actions for adverse action related to an official investigation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 7 June 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Adjustment disorder. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 June 2012, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 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 14-12c 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 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 PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 13 June 2012, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in the proceedings. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is no natural sequelae between PTSD and assault or adultery. The medical record supports that applicant’s BH conditions did not contribute to unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a closed fist or engaging in sexual intercourse with a married person not the spouse that led to applicant’s separation. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a closed fist and engaging in sexual intercourse with a married person not the spouse. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a closed fist and engaging in sexual intercourse with a married person not the spouse. (2) 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a closed fist and engaging in sexual intercourse with a married person not the spouse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD and Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a closed fist and engaging in sexual intercourse with a married person not the spouse. 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. (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 AR20210002401 1