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, an upgrade will allow the use of educational and medical benefits and to be a productive member of society. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 January 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 9 December 2016, the applicant was found drunk while on duty as an extra duty Soldier. On divers occasions between 12 July and 5 October 2016, the applicant failed to report at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. On 21 November 2016, having received a lawful command from Captain P. W., a superior commissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a superior commissioned officer, to not drink alcohol, or words to that effect, did at or near Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan, willfully disobey that same. On 14 November 2016, the applicant physically controlled a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk. On or about 14 November 2016, the applicant wrongfully communicated to Airman First Class (A1C) E. S. a threat to kill A1C E. S., to wit: "I have a bomb or gun to kill you with" or words to that effect. On 14 November 2016, the applicant wrongfully communicated to A1C E. S. a threat to injure A1C E. S. by stating "wait till I get out of these handcuffs, I am going to kick your ass" or words to that effect. On 14 November 2016, the applicant was drunk and disorderly. On 17 December 2014, the applicant was incapacitated for the proper performance of duties through previous wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 January 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 February 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 December 2013 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years, 2 months, 4 days / The DD Form 214, block 12e includes the 3 months, 24 days, inactive service in the Delayed Entry Program. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Japan / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Suspicion of Soldier Drunk on Duty, dated 17 December 2014, reflects the applicant's immediate commander, requested the Military Police conduct a Blood Alcohol Content test. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 17 December 2014, reflects the applicant was insubordinate to a warrant officer and a noncommissioned officer and was found to be drunk on duty when the applicant was administered a breathalyzer, which resulted in 0.06 percent blood alcohol content. CG Article 15, dated 12 February 2015, for as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties (17 December 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Incident Report Summary, dated 28 November 2016, reflects the applicant was apprehended for driving under the influence; destruction of government property; drunk / disorderly conduct; disrespect to a noncommissioned officer; sentinel disrespect; threat communicate; and fleeing the scene of an accident (between 14 and 17 November 2016). Investigation revealed the applicant was observed driving a vehicle over a curb and striking a pole. The applicant left the scene and walked inside the applicant's residence. Patrol officers arrived at the scene and made contact with the applicant and noticed a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the applicant, blood shot eyes, and slurred speech. The standard field sobriety tests were not administered because the applicant was hostile towards the officers. The applicant refused to submit to a breathalyzer and the officers were given authorization to perform blood, breath, and urine from the applicant. The applicant was transported to the Tori Station Provost Marshall Office and administered a breathalyzer with a result of 0.24 breath alcohol content (BrAC). Security Forces Management Information System Individual History Record, dated 28 November 2016, reflects the applicant was involved in numerous offenses between 25 May 2015 and 14 November 2016. FG Article 15, dated 9 December 2016, for: On four occasions failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (12 July, 9 August, 16 September, and 5 October 2016). Willfully disobeying a lawful command from Captain P. W., a superior commissioned officer, to not drink alcohol (21 November 2016). Physically controlling a vehicle, a passenger car, while drunk (14 November 2016) Wrongfully communicating to A1C E. S. a threat to kill A1C E. S., to wit: "I have a bomb or gun to kill you with" (14 November 2016). Wrongfully communicating to A1C E. S. a threat to injure A1C E. S., by stating: "wait till I get out of these handcuffs, I am going to kick your ass" (14 November 2016). Being drunk and disorderly (14 November 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $783 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 15 December 2016, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 9 December 2016, was vacated for: Article 112, being found drunk on duty as an extra duty Soldier. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 3 January 2017, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired and refused the breathalyzer. The applicant was observed driving the vehicle on a curb and striking a pole with the vehicle on 14 November 2016. Security forces arrived at the scene and smelled alcohol emitting from the applicant breath and the applicant had blood shot eyes and slurred speech. The applicant was apprehended and refused to submit a breath sample. The applicant was transferred to the Provost Marshall Office and submitted to Intoxilyzer testing, which resulted in a 0.238 percent BAC on 15 November 2016. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 December 2016, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Social phobia; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - IT; alcohol use disorder, severe. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293. 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) 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 a 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 veterans benefits and 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. 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Major depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Chronic PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found there is no evidence of any mitigating BH conditions. Applicant's only in service diagnoses were substance abuse and ADHD, which are not mitigating conditions. And applicant is not service connected by the VA for any BH conditions. There is no evidence that any of the BH conditions diagnosed by the VA existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veterans benefits and 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. 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 applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the Major depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Chronic PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of drunk on duty, FTRs, disobeyed order not to drink alcohol, driving while intoxicated, communicating a threat, drunk and disorderly, incapacitated to work due to intoxication as none of applicant's diagnoses occurred during military service or were exacerbated by military service. 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 AR20210002527 1