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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant was an exemplary Soldier, a strong leader with a bright future who served with honor and distinction. During the weeks leading up to the separation, the applicant was ordered to undergo a command-directed mental health evaluation and was diagnosed with PTSD. On 6 September 2012, the applicant was rated 50 percent disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PTSD. The applicant suffered from PTSD at the time of the misconduct which led to the discharge. The applicant could have possibly been rehabilitated with a little medical attention if the applicant’s command had taken another route. Ten years ago, the applicant was in a bar shooting pool with friends from the applicant’s old unit; friends the applicant had deployed with on two occasions. It was the applicant’s 24th birthday and the first birthday stateside since the applicant turned 19 years old. The applicant turned 20, 22 and 23 years old while overseas. The applicant was back in Fort Bragg and had reason to celebrate. As the night went on, the applicant had more and more to drink. At some point, a few Soldiers arrived at the bar from F Company, 51st Infantry Regiment, Long Range Surveillance, the unit which the applicant was booted from because of not having a Ranger tab. The Soldiers were privates from the former company, but the applicant and the privates were treated in the same manner because the applicant was an un-tabbed Infantry sergeant, mistakenly sent to a company of Rangers. The applicant’s former Soldier began arguing with someone the applicant did not recognize. The applicant moved in between them and tried to calm the situation. The unknown Soldier struck the applicant in the face and the applicant hit the Soldier with the bottle the applicant was holding. The applicant and the Soldier both went to the hospital and then the applicant went to jail. The unknown victim was a new Soldier in the company the applicant was ousted from. The applicant was stuck in a military intelligence battalion soon to deploy to Iraq. The applicant was now in legal trouble for assaulting one of their Soldiers. It was a disaster. The applicant submitted multiple DA Forms 4187 for reassignment to the old unit, but they were denied. The applicant was to deploy as the battalion commander’s personal security detail noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC), but once in Iraq, the applicant was confined to the compound, escorting local national contractors around Balad Air Base. After several months, the applicant was finally given an Article 15 for the bar fight. The applicant continued to submit DA Forms 4187 for reassignment back to the 82nd Airborne Division, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 504th PIR, located 300 kilometers west, in Al Asad, fighting. One day, in the applicant’s frustration with the situation, the applicant said the wrong things to the battalion command sergeant major. The next thing the applicant knew, the applicant was busted in rank again and sent home a disgrace for unsatisfactory performance. All the applicant wanted was to return to the line. The applicant had no trouble before the applicant was assigned to this battalion. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 31 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 December 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 on 20 October 2007 and a Company Grade Article 15 on 15 December 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 December 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 January 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 August 2004 / NIF / The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief reflects 4 August 2010 as the expiration term of service. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 6 years, 6 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 July 2001 – 4 August 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (29 November 2002 – 14 July 2003); Iraq (10 January 2004 – 11 April 2004; 9 September 2007 – 7 January 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: June 2004 – October 2004 / Among the Best November 2004 – April 2005 / Among the Best 1 June 2006 – 31 May 2007 / Among the Best 1 June 2007 – 20 October 2007 / Needs Improvement h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 23 August 2005, for committing an assault upon Private First Class (PFC) M. H. by striking PFC M. H. in the face with a force likely to produce grievous bodily harm, to wit: the fist (30 July 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $938 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days (suspended) and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 20 October 2007, for committing an assault upon PFC M., by striking PFC M. in the ear/neck with a dangerous weapon, with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: a drinking glass (1 April 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1031 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days (suspended); and restriction (suspended). The form does not reflect how many days of restriction. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 8 December 2007, for various acts of misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 15 December 2007, at LSA Anaconda, Iraq, for being disrespectful in language toward SGM A., a noncommissioned officer, by saying “The SGM is a piece of shit” (8 December 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $403 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 December 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant had a psychiatric condition which requires treatment. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; and history of PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of VA disability rating decision, dated 27 March 2013, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD and major depressive disorder (claimed as mental disorder to include anxiety and PTSD). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; military enlistment documents; military service documents; VA Rating Decision; VA letter; and ten third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends, through a third party statement, becoming an electrician and pursuing a degree in electrical engineering while working a full-time job and supporting a family. 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) Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (4) Paragraph 13-8, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 “JHJ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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: 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with an honorable. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and the separation code is “JHJ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and being rated 50 percent disability by the VA for PTSD. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD and major depressive disorder (claimed as mental disorder to include anxiety and PTSD). The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; history of PTSD, chronic. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 December 2007, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings but had a psychiatric condition which required treatment. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the applicant could have been rehabilitated with a little medical attention if the command would have pursued another route. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being an electrician and pursuing an engineering degree, while working a full-time job and supporting a family. 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/or 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Major Depression, and PTSD. (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 Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Major Depression, and PTSD for which applicant is also service connected by the VA. (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 and difficulty with authority, there was likely some association between applicant’s PTSD and the disrespect. Given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s alcohol-related incident of assault is partially mitigated by applicant’s PTSD; however, applicant already has an HD. It is the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor that the current narrative reason and RE code are appropriate as the condition partially mitigates but does not wholly excuse the misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Major Depression, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – assault. Therefore no further upgrade is appropriate. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, further relief was not warranted. The Board voted the narrative reason is proper and equitable based on the severity of applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and being rated 50 percent disability by the VA for PTSD. 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 determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the applicant could have been rehabilitated with a little medical attention if the command would have pursued another route. The Board determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. (5) The applicant contends being an electrician and pursuing an engineering degree, while working a full-time job and supporting a family. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Major Depression, and PTSD does not outweigh the basis for applicant’s separation – assault and disrespect. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable as the applicant’s conditions mitigates, but does not wholly excuse the misconduct forming the basis of separation and does not mitigate the Article 15 proceeding for assault and the applicant did was separated for this unsatisfactory performance. (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 AR20210002404 1