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, being unable to use the GI Bill to go to school. The applicant is trying to change the applicant’s life around by attending school. The applicant has missed out on great job opportunities because of the discharge. The applicant made a mistake and is currently taking the correct steps to make things right and better for the applicant and the applicant’s family. If the discharge is upgraded, it would be a step in the right direction. The applicant has grown up and has learned from past mistakes and is ready to turn over a new leaf. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was driving while drunk on 15 August 2009. The applicant also committed several offenses which the applicant disrespected a noncommissioned officer and failed to obey a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 February 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 March 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 August 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 4 years, 2 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 January 2006 – 13 August 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 January 2007 – 29 March 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 14 September 2007, for sleeping while on post in Iraq. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $340 pay per month for one month; and extra duty for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 9 March 2008, for being disrespectful in language towards SGT B. H. on two occasions on 26 February 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $300 pay per month for one month; and extra duty for 10 days. CG Article 15, dated 4 February 2009, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 7 January 2009; and being disrespectful in language and deportment toward SSG J. H, on or about 7 January 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $409 pay per month for one month; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Armed Forces Traffic Ticket, dated 15 August 2009, reflects the applicant received a ticket for DUI/Drunk Driving. Memorandum For Commander, Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program, dated 19 August 2009, reflects a rehabilitative team meeting was held on 19 August 2009, it was disclosed the applicant was involved in another alcohol related incident in which the applicant was charged with a DUI. It was decided further rehabilitation efforts are considered impractical. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 November 2009, 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 applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Dependence per ASAP Diagnosis. It was noted the applicant was command referred for a mental status evaluation on 12 November 2009, as command is considering a Chapter 14-12c action. Service Member allegedly assaulted the significant other during an argument at the home. Service Member does not have history of psychiatric disorders, prior outpatient mental health treatment, or inpatient psychiatric treatment. Service Member was previously enrolled in the ASAP program, but was dropped due to a DUI charge. The applicant has not manifested any major mood symptoms. The applicant denied SI/HI/AH/VH. Service Member completed scales for PTSD and TBI. The Service Member did not indicate the applicant was experiencing any symptoms of PTSD or TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has grown up and has learned from past mistakes and is ready to turn over a new leaf. 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 14-12a 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 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 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 applicant contends making a mistake while serving but is currently taking the correct steps to make things better for the family. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant has grown up and has learned from past mistakes and is ready to turn over a new leaf. 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: 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 for PTSD by the VA. 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 and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s PTSD likely contributed to the DUI. Also given the nexus between PTSD and difficulty with authority, there was likely some association between applicant’s PTSD and the disrespect of an NCO. Failing to obey lawful orders and domestic violence against significant other are not mitigated by PTSD. (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 PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUI, disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer, domestic violence against significant other and failure to obey a lawful order. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the 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. (2) 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. (3) The applicant contends making a mistake while serving but is currently taking the correct steps to make things better for the family. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. In this case, the Board determined that an upgrade is not appropriate solely based on applicant taking correct steps to make things better post discharge, ultimately the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. d. 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. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of domestic violence against significant other and failure to obey a lawful order. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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: 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 AR20210002491 1