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, it is not about the issues for the applicant, it is about what the applicant did for the people of the United States and the fighting the applicant did for this country. The applicant's behavior changed because of PTSD, a medical condition which the applicant did not choose but will fight daily to overcome. When the applicant dies, the applicant wishes to be buried with honors with a 21 gun salute. The applicant also would like the applicant's child to keep Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The applicant's pride, honor and selfless service to the country is priceless. It is about honor, the applicant's life to the military and the sacrifice the family and applicant went through for 20 years. The applicant was living at the Temple Domiciliary and has graduated from drugs and alcohol. The applicant has been accepted into the PTSD program in Waco, Texas. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge being the applicant's partially mitigating PTSD diagnosis, third-party statements, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: 26August 2015 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 September 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 March 2012 / indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / some college / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 91X40, Maintenance Supervisor / 20 years, 6 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 February 1995 - 29 April 1998 / HD RA, 30 April 1998 - 29 April 2001 / HD USAR, 30 April 2001 - 14 March 2003 / NIF AD, 15 March 2003 - 17 May 2003 / NIF USAR, 18 May 2003 - 3 May 2006 / HD RA, 4 May 2006 - 12 June 2007 / HD RA, 13 June 2007 - 1 March 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (23 November 2008 - 18 November 2009; 28 June 2006 - 3 June 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-3, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: 29 June 2011 - 30 September 2013 / Among the Best 1 October 2013 - 30 September 2014 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 28 October 2014, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol on 27 September 2014, in Ewa Beach, Hawaii. The applicant was witnessed by police driving between 90-95 MPH in a 35 MPH zone and disregarding red traffic signal lights. Upon making contact with the applicant, the police officer discovered the applicant did not have a valid Hawaii's Driver's License. The applicant was administered a standardized field sobriety test, which the applicant failed. The applicant was also administered a preliminary alcohol screen, which resulted in a BAC of .145 percent. Next, the applicant was apprehended and transported to the police station where the applicant was advised of the Hawaii Implied Consent Law. From an instance, the applicant refused to submit a blood or breath sample. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA Letter, dated 16 March 2017, which reflects the applicant was scheduled to be admitted to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Residential Rehabilitation Program on 22 March 2017. The length of the program was to be 7 to 8 weeks. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Cover Sheet; ERB; three DD Forms 214; Orders 06-285-00025; 11 award certificates; DA Form 2166-8; two third-party letters; certificate of achievement; VA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has graduated from drug and alcohol program. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (5) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant provided a copy of VA letter, dated 16 March 2017, which reflects the applicant was scheduled to be admitted to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Residential Rehabilitation Program on 22 March 2017. The length of the program was to be 7 to 8 weeks. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. 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 has graduated from drug and alcohol program post-service. 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 conduct while serving in 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, and applicant's statement, and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, 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's Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the basis for separation is not contained in applicant's file, so medical mitigation cannot be determined. The Medical Advisor opines that there is a great deal of evidence in the medical record that applicant's substance abuse was exacerbated by the applicant's combat-related PTSD, and that substance-related misconduct can be mitigated by PTSD given the nexus with self-medicating. (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 though the basis of separation is not contained in the file, the Board weighed the evidence of the misconduct that was found in the file and determined that the applicant's PTSD mitigated the cocaine/meth use, and DUI, but the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD did not outweigh the remaining known basis for applicant's separation - excessive speeding - for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's service record, third-party letters, post-service conduct, and the applicant's PTSD partially mitigating the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends suffering from 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 considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD partially mitigates the basis for separation, and along with the applicant's service record, third-party letters, and post-service conduct the discharge was inequitable thus warranting an upgrade. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (4) The applicant has graduated from drug and alcohol program post-service. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to post-service conduct, third party letters, service record, and partially mitigating PTSD outweighing the basis for separation. (5) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to post-service conduct, third party letters, service record, and partially mitigating PTSD outweighing the basis for separation c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge being the applicant's partially mitigating PTSD diagnosis, third-party statements, and post-service accomplishments. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because PTSD mitigated the cocaine/meth use, and DUI, and though the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD did not outweigh the remaining known basis for applicant's separation - excessive speeding - the applicant's post-service conduct, third party letters, and service record, did outweigh the remaining known basis for separation. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002409 1