1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to narrative reason and RE-code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, enlisting in the Army in June 2006; and completing initial entry training and Airborne School. The applicant deployed to Afghanistan on two occasions and received various awards during the deployments. In May 2012, the applicant attended the Small Unmanned Aerial System (SUAS) Master Trainer course. When the applicant returned, the applicant discovered the knee and elbow pads, and a few other small pieces of gear the applicant had been issued were missing from the applicant’s apartment. The applicant was living off-post at the time, sharing an apartment with the applicant’s cousin. The applicant concluded the items were stolen, after verifying the gear was not in the cousin’s possession. At around the same time, the applicant’s car was vandalized. The applicant filed a police report for the vandalism, but not for the stolen gear. The applicant was not concerned about the theft of the gear, as it was valued at only about $100 to $200. The applicant informed the section sergeant the applicant’s gear had been stolen, explaining the applicant planned to buy replacements. The applicant wanted to avoid a situation where the sergeant would think the applicant had lost the gear. Given the circumstances and low value of the stolen gear, the applicant believed the situation was not serious. In September 2012, the applicant’s unit attempted to account for all gear issued to Soldiers. The applicant reminded the sergeant the applicant had reported the applicant’s gear as stolen. The sergeant sought a police report to verify the theft. Remembering the police report the applicant had made about vandalism, but misremembering the subject of the report, the applicant told the sergeant the applicant had filed a police report about the stolen gear. The sergeant accompanied the applicant to the police department to retrieve the report. After only finding the applicant’s vandalism report, the sergeant accused the applicant of lying. The sergeant went to the commander and recommended the applicant be chaptered out of the Army. The applicant was given a choice between a court martial and an involuntary discharge. The applicant received advice from a judge advocate which minimized the negative consequences of a discharge and emphasized the risks of a court martial. The applicant believed the only real choice was to accept the discharge, not realizing by doing so, the applicant was giving up the G.I. Bill. The applicant suffers from severe PTSD from the deployments and was rated 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Despite the fact the applicant does not qualify to receive the full benefits of the G.I. Bill, the applicant is attending college with the goal of getting a degree in divinity and working as a minister. The applicant is a leader both in the applicant’s college veteran’s groups and in the applicant’s church and is an exemplary citizen. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement submitted with the application. The applicant requests to change the narrative reason to secretarial authority. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 21 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: Under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offence, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant made multiple false official statements to the senior leadership on 9 August 2012, claiming the applicant’s TA-50 had been stolen from the applicant’s home of residence. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 October 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 30 October 2012, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 November 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority approved the separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 December 2007 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13D2P, Field Artillery Automation / 6 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 July 2006 – 17 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (11 May 2007 – 22 July 2008; 22 November 2009 – 7 November 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2010 – 3 December 2010 / Marginal 1 November 2011 – 31 October 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 December 2010, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk (15 November 2010). The document is void of the punishment imposed. The Commander’s Report reflects the applicant received a CG Article on 24 August 2012, for making false official statements. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated between 7 September 2011 and 15 August 2012, which reflects the applicant was assessed by Womack Army Medical Center with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions. Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, 13 May 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent disabling for post-traumatic stress disorder, combined with traumatic brain injury. Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 15 March 2018, which reflects the applicant was honorably discharged veteran who has a service-connected disability rated at 100 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder with traumatic brain injury 100 percent; sleep apnea 50 percent; traumatic brain injury 40 percent; and posttraumatic tension headaches 10 percent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief; self-authored statement; character reference; VA Health Summary; VA letter; VA Rating Decision; medical records; Chronological Record of Medical Care. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being an exemplary citizen, attends college, is pursuing a degree in divinity, and works as a minister. The applicant also claims to be a leader in the church and in the college veterans group. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge should have been upgraded because of the applicant’s combat tours and severe disability. The applicant’s current characterization for the period under review is honorable. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with an 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 being rated 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and rated for other mental health conditions by the VA. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating service-connected disability ratings by the VA for post-traumatic stress disorder with traumatic brain injury 100 percent; sleep apnea 50 percent; traumatic brain injury 40 percent; and post-traumatic tension headaches 10 percent. The applicant was assessed while in the service with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the command failed to properly investigate the matter before separating the applicant. The AMHRR reflects the applicant was entitled to an administrative separation board at the time of notification; consulted with a legal counsel; and elected to waive consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considers service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 being an exemplary citizen, attends college, is pursuing a degree in divinity, and works as a minister. The applicant also claims to be a leader in the church and in the college veterans group. 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 statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD and TBI existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant already has an HD and furthermore, there is no natural sequelae between any of applicant’s BH conditions and making multiple false official statements. It is recommended that the RE Code remain a 3 due to the service connection for BH conditions. (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 an upgrade is not warranted as the applicant currently has an Honorable characterization of service, and that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD and TBI fully outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – false official statements to senior leadership claiming the applicant’s TA- 50 had been stolen from the applicant’s home of residence. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The Board considered this contention, and determined that there is no natural sequela between any of the applicant’s BH conditions and the misconduct, therefore the current narrative reason is proper and equitable. The Board noted the current Honorable characterization and decided no further relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends being rated 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and rated for other mental health conditions by the VA. 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 there is no natural sequela between the applicant’s PTSD and the misconduct. Furthermore, the Board noted the current Honorable characterization and decided no further relief is warranted. (3) The applicant contends the command failed to properly investigate the matter before separating the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends being an exemplary citizen, attends college, is pursuing a degree in divinity, and works as a minister. The applicant also claims to be a leader in the church and in the college veterans group. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief was not warranted (7) The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined that since 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 medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD does 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 AR20210002509 1