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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, making a poor decision after returning from a combat tour in Iraq. The applicant’s mind was still overseas in Iraq and turned to alcohol for a coping mechanism. The applicant did not seek help at the time because the Soldier mentality was strong. The applicant did not immediately pursue an upgrade due to the lack of knowledge of how the discharge would affect the rest of the applicant’s life. The applicant has matured and worked hard in the Army and after discharge. The applicant does not believe the current discharge accurately reflects who the applicant is as a person or military service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 November 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 December 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, on or between 22 September and 2 October 2008, the service member wrongfully used Ecstasy, Schedule I Controlled substance; went AWOL on or about 25 November 2006 and remained so until on or about 28 December 2006. The service member also went AWOL on or about 30 September 2008 and remained so until on or about 2 October 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 December 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 10 December 2008, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 January 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 January 2005 / 5 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 April 2007 – 10 June 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-V; ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR- 2 CIB, ICM-BS g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 29 January 2007, for being AWOL from on or about 25 November to 28 December 2006. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. MP Blotter, dated 22 March 2006; the applicant was charged with Driving Under the influence; Failure to obey Police Officer; Unsafe tires; Reckless driving; MVA/VEH-VEH/No injuries. MP Blotter, dated 30 November 2006; the applicant was charged with AWOL. MP Blotter, dated 16 July 2008; the applicant was charged with Driving Under the influence. MP Blotter, dated 18 July 2008; the applicant was charged with Criminal assault. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 22 August 2008, reflects on or about 21 June 2008 the applicant was apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Pierce County, Washington, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before apprehension, Trooper A., of the Washington State Patrol initiated a traffic stop because the trooper observed the applicant drifting in and out of lanes of traffic. When Trooper A., approached the applicant, the trooper smelled alcohol on the applicant’s breath. Trooper A., administered a Standard Field Sobriety Test which indicated impairment. The Trooper then arrested and transported the applicant to the Fort Lewis MP Station. The applicant refused to submit to a lawfully requested breathalyzer test. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 October 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process. FG Article 15, dated 14 November 2008, for AWOL from on or about 30 September to 2 October 2008. Between on or about 22 September and 2 October 2008, wrongfully use Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Ecstasy), Schedule I Controlled substance. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $674 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 35 days, 25 November 2006 to 28 December 2006; 30 September 2008 to 2 October 2008. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a certificate for Intensive Inpatient Treatment dated 31 August 2008 from the staff at the Recovery Center at Valley General Hospital. The certificate does not indicate the conditions which were treated. Chronological record of health care reflects the applicant was treated for a personality disorder, Alcohol dependence in remission and Occupational problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DA Form 638; Good Conduct Medal Certificate; self-authored letter; two letters of support; Driving Academy Certificate; Diver Medic Technician Certificate; Emergency Medical Technician; Core Curricula Certificate; Rigging Fundamentals; Intensive Inpatient Treatment; technical Certificate; Commercial Driving Academy Diploma and certificate; Infantry Training Brigade Certificate; Community of Heroes Certificate; Black Smith Marine Corporation Certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states maturing and working hard by completing multiple certifications. 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 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the current discharge does not accurately reflect who the applicant is as a person or military service. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends the mind was still overseas in Iraq and turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record reflects the applicant was treated for a personality disorder, Alcohol dependence in remission and Occupational problems. The applicant provided a certificate for Intensive Inpatient Treatment, dated 31 August 2008, from the staff at the Recovery Center at Valley General Hospital. The certificate did not indicate the conditions which were treated. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record reflects, a Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 22 October 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear-thinking process. The MSE was considered by the separation authority The applicant contends maturing and working hard after the discharge by completing multiple certifications. 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. 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. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's 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 Given the nexus between PTSD, self-medicating with substances, and avoidance, applicant’s PTSD likely contributed to the drug abuse and the second AWOL. First AWOL occurred prior to deployment and is not medically mitigated. Applicant already has an HD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Combat-related PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongful use of ecstasy, AWOL, and DUI. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the current discharge does not accurately reflect who the applicant is as a person or military service. The Board determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the mind was still overseas in Iraq and turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism. The Board determined the applicant had a DUI and attended ASAP prior to the first deployment. Ultimately, the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends maturing and working hard after the discharge by completing multiple certifications. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. 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. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (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 AR20210002459 1