1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, serving in the Army for over twenty years, achieving the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and serving in five combat deployments to Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The applicant was awarded various awards, including the Bronze Star Medal. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in 1995, after serving in the Kansas Army National Guard. The applicant experienced many traumatic experiences in combat and in training but continued to serve. The applicant received exemplary evaluations and was consistently recommended for promotion. After the applicant returned from Afghanistan, a physical evaluation board (PEB) found the applicant unfit to continue service because of chronic and severe PTSD. The PEB found the PTSD and other injuries were service-connected and proposed a rating of 100 percent disability, including special monthly compensation. The applicant was issued medical retirement orders, effective 17 March 2015. The separation board was based on false accusations and initiated by the applicant's former unit, with which the applicant had no contact. There were procedural flaws in the separation hearing. The applicant was barred from having military counsel at the hearing. The Recorder failed to use a Special Assistant US Attorney to assist the board in understanding the charges; the Recorder incorrectly referred to an alleged driving infraction the applicant was never convicted of, and the board mistakenly found the applicant guilty of the infraction. The alleged participation in a criminal organization was not based on any substantiated evidence and the applicant's association with the motorcycle club did not violate the DoD directive at the time. The allegations by Officer P. were wholly unsubstantiated claims. The applicant served with distinction for over 20 years, sacrificing everything because of a love of the country. It was within the Army's discretion to allow the applicant to execute the retirement orders, but the Army decided to strip the applicant of all benefits. The applicant was separated from the Army without retirement pay and the discharge prohibits the applicant from receiving Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits and makes it difficult to find employment which allows the applicant to use the unique skills learned during the 20 year career. The Hagel memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, which was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, provides the basis for this Board to review the applicant's discharge, consider the impact of the applicant's PTSD, and upgrade the discharge to honorable. The Hagel memorandum was designed to help veterans similar to the applicant. The applicant provided several letters showing the applicant's dedication during the time in the Army, including one from a Soldier, an amputee, who credited the applicant for the Soldier's strength to return from a serious injury and be declared fit for duty. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 February 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses mitigated DUI) and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the remainder of the applicant's the misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: 10 February 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 7 January 2014, the applicant plead guilty to a charge of driving under the influence which occurred on 26 August 2013 and reckless driving which occurred on 7 June 2013. On 31 March 2014, the applicant drove the vehicle under restraint in violation of Colorado State Statue, Driver's License-Permit Unauthorized Person / Driver and plead guilty on 18 July 2014. Between 9 December 2013 and 1 May 2014, the applicant violated a written order, DoD Directive 1325.06, enclosure 3, paragraph 8, dated 27 November 2009, by wrongfully participating in the criminal gang organization, Sin City Disciples. The applicant committed second degree assault for which the applicant was arrested for on 26 August 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 October 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 20 October 2014, the applicant requested consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. On 25 November 2014, the applicant's case was referred to an administrative separation board. On 3 February 2015, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with civilian counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions for three of the four allegations referred to the administrative separation board: On 7 January 2014, the applicant plead guilty to a charge of driving under the influence which occurred on 26 August 2013 and reckless driving which occurred on 7 June 2013. On 31 March 2014, the applicant drove the vehicle under restraint in violation of Colorado State Statue, Driver's License-Permit Unauthorized Person / Driver and plead guilty on 18 July 2014. Between 9 December 2013 and 1 May 2014, the applicant violated a written order, DoD Directive 1325.06, enclosure 3, paragraph 8, dated 27 November 2009, by wrongfully participating in the criminal gang organization, Sin City Disciples. On 11 March 2015, the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) indicated the findings and recommendations of administrative separation board and separation action were considered. The MEB findings indicated the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and chronic right shoulder strain (dominant). The GCMCA found the medical condition was not the cause or substantial contributing cause of the applicant's misconduct. The GCMCA recommended separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and forwarded the case to the Commander, Human Resource Command. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 December 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The separation authority reviewed the MEB and determined the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommended administrative separation. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 August 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / Bachelor's Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 19K40, M1 Armor Crewman / 24 years, 9 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 13 April 1990 - 1 October 1992 / GD IADT, 5 June 1990 - 10 August 1990 / NA ADT, 19 June 1991 - 17 August 1991 / UNC USARCG, 2 October 1992 - 7 November 1995 / NA RA, 8 November 1995 - 9 June 1998 / HD RA, 10 June 1998 - 13 June 2000 / HD RA, 14 June 2000 - 25 June 2003 / HD RA, 26 June 2003 - 19 April 2005 / HD RA, 20 April 2005 - 31 July 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (28 September 2010 - 21 June 2011); Iraq (26 April 2003 - 9 December 2003; 9 October 2004 - 22 September 2005; 9 March 2008 - 9 March 2009); Kuwait (15 April 1999 - 15 August 1999) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, VUA, ASUA, AGCM-6, NDSM-2, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-5, NATOMDL-2, CAB / The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects award of two AAMs and two AFEMs; however, the DD Form 214 reflects one AAM and one AFEM. g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2007 - 31 October 2013 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA)," effective date 4 September 2014, 1700; and "CCA" to "PDY," effective date 4 September 2014. Detail and Release of Military Defense Counsel, dated 15 December 2015 [sic] and 30 January 2015, reflects Captain (CPT) B. F., trial defense counsel, was detailed by the senior defense counsel, as the applicant's defense counsel. On 30 January 2015, the applicant released CPT B. F. from representation as the applicant's trial defense counsel in an administrative separation board. The applicant indicated, with full knowledge of the right to retain the services of the detailed military defense counsel, the applicant freely made the decision to release CPT B. F. as the applicant's detailed military defense counsel for the purposes of the applicant's administrative separation board. Orders 357-0027, dated 23 December 2014, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the Fort Carson TC, and retired / separated from the Regular Army on 17 March 2015, because of a physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and under conditions which permit the placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List. Formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 3 February 2015, reflect the investigating board found: The allegation of on 7 January 2014, the applicant plead guilty to a charge of driving under the influence which occurred on 26 August 2013 and reckless driving which occurred on 7 June 2013, does by the preponderance of evidence support the applicant committed the acts. The allegation of on 31 March 2014, the applicant drove the vehicle under restraint in violation of Colorado State Statute, Driver's license-permit Unauthorized Person / Driver and plead guilty on 18 July 2014, does by the preponderance of evidence support the applicant committed the acts. The allegation of between 9 December 2013 and 1 May 2014, the applicant violated a written order, DoD Directive 1325.06, enclosure 3, paragraph 8, dated 27 November 2009, by wrongfully participating in the criminal gang organization, Sin City Disciples, does by the preponderance of the evidence support the applicant committed the acts. The allegation of the applicant committed second degree assault which the applicant was arrested for on 26 August 2014, does not by the preponderance of evidence supports the applicant committed the acts. * The findings do warrant separation. Orders 076-0018, 17 March 2015, reflect Orders 357-0027, dated 23 December 2014, pertaining to the applicant's retirement were revoked or rescinded. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 14 August 2014, which reflects, among other conditions, the VA proposed a service-connected disability rating of 50 percent for PTSD (also claimed as memory lapses / loss); 10 percent for right shoulder strain (claimed as right shoulder arm fracture residuals); 10 percent for post-traumatic migraine and tension headaches; and 0 percent for TBI. The applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected as a combined rating. The Physical Evaluation Board, dated 21 December 2014, reflects PEB found the applicant physically unfit for PTSD and chronic right shoulder strain (dominant) and recommended a rating of 60 percent and the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List, with a reexamination during July 2015. Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 September 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD falls below retention standards, completed MEB and found to be not retainable, has separation date; TBI with post-traumatic headaches. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 January 2016, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI with positive results. These conditions were evaluated previously and per the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, and it was determined the applicant fell below retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, Chapter 3-33 for PTSD and did not fall below retention standards for TBI. The applicant was previously evaluated for chapter separation on 2 June 2014 and was not cleared from a behavioral health standpoint. The applicant would continue to engage in Behavioral Health services as recommended by the applicant's treating provider. The applicant was not cleared for administrative separation from a psychiatric perspective. The applicant was diagnosed with: Chronic PTSD. Memorandum, subject: Administrative Termination of Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings for [Applicant], dated 29 February 2016, reflects the case was administratively terminated because the applicant was separated from the Army in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293, with all listed enclosures; power of attorney termination notice; NCO Evaluation Reports; Enlisted Record Brief; and VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable 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 waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends serving with distinction for over 20 years, sacrificing everything, including the applicant's mental and physical health, because of the applicant's love for this country. The applicant's good service, including five combat tours (Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and awards include the Bronze Star, three Army Commendation Medals, The Army Achievement Medal, six Good Conduct Medals, and many other awards. The applicant contends a discharge upgrade is warranted based on impropriety because of procedural flaws in the applicant separation hearing. The applicant was barred from having military counsel at the hearing. The Board Recorder failed to use a Special Assistant US Attorney to assist the Board in understanding the charges, the Recorder incorrectly referred to an alleged driving infraction that the applicant was not convicted of, and the Board mistakenly found the applicant guilty of the infraction. The applicant provided evidence that the applicant released the detailed military defense counsel for the purposes of the administrative separation board and before releasing military counsel the applicant understood the right to be represented by detailed military defense counsel. Regarding the military defense counsel, the Special Assistant US Attorney, the alleged driving infraction, and the applicant's association with a criminal organization, the AMHRR is void of the separation board proceedings and does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends a PEB found the applicant unfit to continue service because of chronic and severe PTSD among other conditions and recommended 100 percent disability. The applicant provided a VA rating decision which reflects the applicant was 50 percent service- connected disability for PTSD; 100 percent combined rating. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in- service PTSD. The AMHRR shows a PEB convened on 21 December 2014 and determined the applicant was medically unfitting for PTSD among other conditions and recommended 60 percent disability. The applicant provided a VA proposed rating which reflects the VA recommended 100 percent combined rating. The PEB was terminated because the applicant was being separated because of misconduct. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 26 January 2016, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and was not cleared for separation. The PEB and Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends a discharge upgrade is warranted based on impropriety because the establishment of the separation board was based on false accusations and initiated by the applicant's former unit with which the applicant had no contact. The applicant was notified the separation was based the allegations referenced in paragraph 3c, above. The administrative separation board convened and found by preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed these offense, except for the second degree assault allegation resulted in the applicant was arrested on 26 August 2014. The applicant's discharge should be upgraded based on impropriety because the alleged participation in a criminal organization was not based on any substantial evidence and the applicant's association with the motorcycle club did not violate the DoD Directive at the time. The applicant contends the Army's discretion to allow the applicant to execute the retirement orders. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 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 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. 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: Combat- related PTSD, Concussion/TBI, Anxiety, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). . (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 a Concussion/TBI, Anxiety, and combat-related PTSD that is also service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's PTSD mitigates the applicant's DUI offense given the nexus between PTSD and self-medication. However, the applicant's PTSD, MDD, Concussion/TBI, Anxiety and MDD do not mitigate the applicant's reckless driving, unauthorized driving of a vehicle and wrongfully participating in a gang organization as there is no natural sequela between PTSD and the applicant's other behavioral health conditions and these offenses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that, while the applicant's PTSD mitigates the applicant's DUI offense, the applicant's PTSD and other above referenced behavioral health conditions do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of reckless driving, unauthorized driving of a vehicle, or wrongfully participating in a gang organization. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends serving with distinction for over 20 years, sacrificing everything, including the applicant's mental and physical health, because of the applicant's love for this country. The applicant's good service, including five combat tours (Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and awards include the Bronze Star, three Army Commendation Medals, The Army Achievement Medal, six Good Conduct Medals, and many other awards outweigh the misconduct which led to separation. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's service record and determined the applicant's discharge was inequitable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's DUI offense and the applicant's 20 years of service, the applicant's combat service, and the applicant's quality of service outweighs the applicant's offenses of reckless driving, unauthorized driving of a vehicle, wrongfully participating in a gang organization. Therefore, relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends a PEB found the applicant unfit to continue service because of chronic and severe PTSD among other conditions and recommended 100 percent disability. The Board considered this contention but, ultimately, did not make a determination as the Board already voted to grant relief based as stated in paragraph 9b(1) above. (3) The applicant contends the separation board was based on false accusations and there were procedural flaws in the separation proceedings. The Board considered this contention but, ultimately, did not make a determination as the Board already voted to grant relief based as stated in paragraph 9b(1) above. (4) The applicant contends the Army's discretion to allow the applicant to execute the retirement orders. The Board considered this contention but, ultimately, did not make a determination as the Board already voted to grant relief based as stated in paragraph 9b(1) above. (5) The applicant's discharge should be upgraded based on impropriety because the alleged participation in a criminal organization was not based on any substantial evidence and the applicant association with the motorcycle club did not violate the DoD Directive at the time. The Board considered this contention but, ultimately, did not make a determination as the Board already voted to grant relief based as stated in paragraph 9b(1) above. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade to the discharge would allow veterans benefit. 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. (7) 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 characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses mitigated DUI) and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the remainder of the applicant's. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable after applying liberal consideration of all the evidence because the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's DUI offense and the totality of the applicant's record, including the applicant's 20 years of service, five combat tours, and the quality of the applicant's service outweighed the applicant's offenses of reckless driving, unauthorized driving of a vehicle, and wrongfully participating in a gang organization. (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. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002406 1