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 will be considered for requests a change to the narrative reason, separation authority, separation code, and reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge should be upgraded based on being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the Veteran Affairs (VA). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 24 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, dated 3 January 2014, on 25 September 2013, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, Specification 1, 2 and 3: On 26 March, 9 April and 3 December 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed of appointed place of duty. Charge II: Violating Article 90, UCMJ, Specification: On 3 June 2013, for willfully disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer. Charge III: Violating Article 91, UCMJ, Specification 1: On 25 March 2013, willfully disobeying lawful orders from a non- commissioned officer. Specification 2: On 1 June 2012, disrespectful in deportment toward a non- commissioned officer. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 3 January 2014 / The sentence was approved and except for part of the sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge, would be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 January 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / Associate Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 68E30, Dental Specialist / 18 years, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USN, 27 May 1997 – 26 May 2001 / HD USNR, 27 May 2001 – 8 July 2003 / NA RA, 9 July 2003 – 30 October 2008 / HD RA, 31 October 2008 – 6 January 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Mali, Korea, SWA / Iraq (27 May 2007 – 28 May 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-5, MUC-2, USCGUC, AGCM-3, USNGCM, NDSM, AFEM-2, GWOTSM, KDSM-2, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, USNSSDR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 16 October 2011 – 15 January 2012 / Fully Capable 16 January 2012 – 4 December 2012 / Marginal 1 April 2013 – 10 October 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 April 2011, for wrongfully soliciting SPC G. D., to make a false official statement (30 March 2011); for derelict in performance of duties by willfully failing to measure SPC G.D. three times in APTU (24 March 2011); and for wrongfully communicating a threat to SPC J. M., (23 March 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5. Special Court-Martial Order as described in paragraph 3c, above. Developmental Counseling Form, failing to utilize chain of command properly. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 20 April 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA medical records; VA Summary of Benefits. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Advanced degree and academic honors. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. 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 “JJD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a Special Court-Martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Special Court-Martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant believes the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Court- Martial (Other),” and the separation code is “JJD.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the 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 suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided a VA summary of benefits letter indicating a diagnosis of PTSD and 50% disability rating. The AMHRR is void of a Mental Status Evaluation. 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, after applying liberal consideration found that the applicant’s PTSD and other behavioral health conditions (Unspecified Intracranial Injury with no loss of consciousness (LOC)), in part, mitigated the applicant’s offenses (FTRs, disobedience, and disrespect) adjudged by a Special Court-Martial with a Bad Conduct Discharge, which previous Boards upgraded to an Honorable Discharge based on clemency, which now warrants reconsideration of applicant’s discharge narrative reason and RE code. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant’s Unspecified Intracranial Injury with no LOC and PTSD existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD and other behavioral health conditions (Unspecified Intracranial Injury with no loss of consciousness (LOC)), in part, mitigated the applicant’s offenses (FTRs, disobedience, and disrespect) adjudged by a Special Court-Martial with a Bad Conduct Discharge, which previous Boards upgraded to an Honorable Discharge based on clemency. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD and Unspecified Intracranial Injury with no loss of consciousness (LOC) outweighed the applicant’s medically mitigated FTRs, disobedience, and disrespect offenses. However, the Board determined that a change to the applicant’s RE-code 4 is not warranted because the applicant has a 50% VA disability for PTSD, which is a duty-limiting condition in accordance with AR 40-501. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant believes the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and found no further relief to be warranted, since the applicant refused an Article 15 and requested the Court Martial. The applicant was afforded the requested court martial and separated by it. The Board found no evidence that the narrative reason was improper or inequitable. (2) The applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which led to the discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s PTSD (see paragraph 9 a. of this document) and determined that no further relief is warranted. (3) The applicant believes the reentry code for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and concurred with the Board Medical Advisor that a change to the applicant’s RE-code 4 is not warranted because the applicant has a 50% VA disability for PTSD, which is a duty-limiting condition in accordance with AR 40-501. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service as the applicant’s discharge was previously upgraded to Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, since the applicant requested the Court Martial instead of accepting an Article 15 for misconduct. The request was granted, the applicant was found guilty and separated by the courts martial. There is no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The RE code will not change based on the applicant’s service-limiting PTSD in accordance with AR 40-501. 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 AR20210002437 1