1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while serving in the Army the applicant never sought help, because of being afraid of losing the job. In the end, it was not seeking the required help which ruined the career. The applicant deeply regrets, every day, the decision to not seek help. After graduating from the basic combat training, the airborne school, and the Ranger Assessment and Selection program, the applicant was assigned to the 2nd Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. The unit trained for months prior to the first deployment to Afghanistan on 23 August 2010. The deployment was tough. There were some friendly KIAs and numerous injuries. When the unit returned to CONUS on 1 February 2011, the applicant developed PTSD symptoms. The applicant, trying to cope with the symptoms, began drinking heavily which led to many problems, including the discharge. Six months later after redeployment, due to underage drinking, the applicant was reassigned to a Recon unit at Fort Bliss and served as a sniper. The applicant enjoyed the duties as a sniper, but still found it difficult coping with the PTSD, and once again, was into trouble six months later. The applicant received a field grade Article 15 for being drunk on duty. The punishment included a demotion to PFC. The applicant then knew something was wrong but never sought help and instead, concealed the pain and tried to bury it. The applicant, quickly regained the rank of SPC and attended WLC in 2013, followed by attending a promotion board and becoming a noncommissioned officer. The applicant served as a team leader. The second deployment was on 27 June 2013 and returned to CONUS on 29 September 2013. The applicant served as a squad Leader, attended BLC in 2014, and attended and passed the SSG promotion board. The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 May 2015. The applicant still struggled with consuming alcohol to combat the PTSD symptoms. The unit went to NTC for training the second time in June 2015. After the training event, and upon returning on a weekend, the applicant made a poor choice of being arrested for DWI. The applicant was notified of the intent to be separated from the Army. The applicant requested a separation board. In February 2016, the Board recommended a separation, but a 12-month probationary period. A JAG attorney informed the applicant the board was conducted illegally. When the applicant elected to appeal, the applicant was informed of the impending separation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was subsequently discharged. The applicant contends having learned the president of the administrative separation board was relieved after an investigation found multiple violations of Army regulations and policies, including SHARP and EO violations. The applicant contends not receiving proper counsel during the discharge proceedings, nor guidance on the ramifications of the discharge criteria on the future life or afforded PTSD counseling while in the service. The applicant requests reconsideration of the type of discharge and RE code. The applicant listed the awards received. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 September 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: 9 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The notification is void from the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), however according to the Commander’s Report, dated 14 September 2015, the specific factual reason for separation recommended was the applicant drove while intoxicated. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 September 2015, the applicant requested consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. On 9 November and 9 December 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 11 December 2015, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board determined the allegation the applicant drove while intoxicated was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The Board also recommended the discharge be suspended for a period of 12 months. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 February 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 December 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 6 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 August 2009 – 4 December 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 August 2010 – 1 February 2011, 27 June 2013 – 29 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, JSAM, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2014 / Fully Capable 1 January 2015 – 25 November 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Judgment and Sentence in the County Court at Law document, dated 10 September 2015, reflects the applicant’s charge of driving while intoxicated on 22 May 2015. The Court adjudged a sentence of one year confinement in a civilian county jail, a fine of $500 and costs of $437, and the Court also ordered the imposition of the sentence be suspended and the applicant be placed on community supervision for a period of 13 months. A Developmental Counseling Form dated 15 July 2015, for the applicant being recommended for separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for driving under the influence of alcohol. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 21 October 2015, reflects the applicant was apprehended by civilian police department for driving while intoxicated on 22 May 2015, after being found in a rolled over vehicle. The applicant failed a standardized field sobriety test and the breathalyzer test administered confirmed the consumption of alcohol and revealed a blood alcohol content at .181 percent, in violation of the UCMJ and the state penal code. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE), dated 1 March 2016, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA letter, dated 29 March 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, cannabis use disorder, moderate, early full remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; letter of supporting; DD Form 214; and VA letter, dated 29 March 2017. 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) 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 narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and the separation code is “JKN.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, is “JKN.” The applicant contends while trying to cope with the PTSD symptoms, the applicant began drinking heavily which led to many problems, including the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 1 March 2016, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the military career included graduating from airborne school and the Ranger Assessment and Selection program, being assigned and deploying with a 75th Ranger Regiment unit, serving as a sniper with a recon unit, and serving as squad and team leader. The applicant provided a list of awards earned. The applicant contends a JAG attorney informed the applicant the administrative separation board which made its findings and recommendations on the applicant’s separation, was conducted illegally. When the applicant elected to appeal, the applicant was informed of the impending separation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was subsequently discharged. The applicant’s contentions included having learned the president of the administrative separation board was relieved after an investigation found multiple violations of Army regulations and policies, including SHARP and EO violations; not receiving proper counsel during the discharge proceedings, nor guidance on the ramifications of the discharge criteria on the future life or afforded PTSD counseling while in the service. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the requested changes to the separation would reestablish the eligibility to receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Eligibility for veterans’ 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. 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: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military 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 is diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for PTSD, which is a mitigating BH condition for DUI. However, applicant already has an HD. It is recommended that applicant’s RE Code remain a 3 due to applicant’s service connection for PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The character of service is honorable, and no further relief is available. Liberal consideration was applied to the narrative reason, and it was determined condition PTSD did mitigate the DUI, but did not fully excuse the misconduct, the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct and the fraction of responsibility remaining with the applicant makes “Minor Infractions” equitable. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the RE code was proper and equitable given the reason for separation and service limiting condition. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings. However, the Board voted the narrative reason is appropriate as the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated and not excused by applicant’s PTSD, no further changes are warranted. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. It should be noted that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. (3) The applicant contends while trying to cope with the PTSD symptoms, the applicant began drinking heavily which led to many problems, including the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends the military career included graduating from airborne school and the Ranger Assessment and Selection program, being assigned and deploying with a 75th Ranger Regiment unit, serving as a sniper with a recon unit, and serving as squad and team leader. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. (5) The applicant contends not receiving proper counsel during the discharge proceedings, nor guidance on the ramifications of the discharge criteria on the future life or afforded PTSD counseling while in the service. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant has an HD with Minor Infractions and no further relief is warranted. (6) The applicant contends the requested changes to the separation would reestablish the eligibility to receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Board 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. 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 AR20210002483 1