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, the applicant dedicated life to fight for the country at 18 years old and was shipped far from home. The applicant states the unit lacked leadership and moral support. The applicant now suffers from PTSD, financial issues, anxiety, lack of focus and memory loss. The applicant was denied education benefits and believes the applicant deserves an education for giving up life and leaving family to fight for the country. Since the discharge, the applicant has failed at maintaining a job and has been unsuccessful at keeping over six jobs in a year. The applicant has a hard time mentally accepting risking one’s life for an organization which caused so much stress at a young age. The applicant has feelings of betrayal and trauma, which have caused the applicant to keep people away. The applicant had a hard time at 18 adjusting to the Army, after realizing everyone was for themselves without a mature noncommissioned officer to lead them. The applicant was humiliated and made a fool of and then discharged for something undeserving. The applicant states, no one cared to understand the reasons for these actions. The applicant wants to invest solely in oneself and stand on one’s own two feet. The applicant lives with a grandparent and is doing everything to remain strong for the family since the passing of the other grandparent. The applicant’s mental issues are getting in the way of helping with the bills. The applicant’s education benefits were revoked and now is filing for disability in and submitting a claim for PTSD, which developed to its full potential while serving in the US Army. The applicant plans to go to school for cosmetology to earn money doing hair until the claims are settled. The applicant cannot afford school or anything else because of the situation. The applicant states being a Soldier was a dream since high school and while serving the country experienced much in a short period. The applicant was promoted from E-1 to E-4 in less than two years and was proud of oneself, and would serve again and make better decisions next time. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 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, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 June 2015, the applicant was disrespectful towards 1LT W. On 30 October 2015, the applicant was derelict in the performance of duties by failing to lock the outer doors to the Arms Room. On 5 February 2016, the applicant damaged the personal property of PVT W., and struck the Soldier on the face. On multiple occasions, the applicant failed to be at appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 May 2013 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 16 December 2015, for failing to lock the outer door of the Arms Room, on 30 October 2015; disrespect towards 1LT W.; fail to go at prescribe time appointed place of duty on numerous occasions between (3 January and 3 November 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); extra duty for 14 days; and restriction for 7 days. Law Enforcement Report dated 9 March 2016, reflects on 16 February 2016, this station received a legal opine from SJA (CPT B.) stated probable cause exists, the applicant violated Article 109, UCMJ (Damaging Personal Property), & Article 128, UCMJ (Assault Consummated by a Battery); and, PVT W., violated Article 128, UCMJ (Assault Consummated by a Battery). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 25 April 2016, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 16 December 2015, was vacated for: Article 109, wrongfully damage personal property by causing water damage of a value of less than $500; Article 128, unlawfully strike PVT W., Article 134, unlawfully enter the dwelling house of PVT W. FG Article 15, dated 2 May 2016, on 5 February 2016 wrongfully damage personal property by causing water damage, of a value less than 500; Unlawfully strike PVT W. on the face. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and extra duty for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement and letter of support. 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: 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 suffering from PTSD. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends 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 the unit lacked leadership and moral support. The applicant had a hard time adjusting to the Army after realizing everyone was for themselves without a mature noncommissioned officer to lead them. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant was humiliated and made a fool of and then discharged for something undeserving. The applicant states no one cared to understand the reasons for these actions. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends good service. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant and recognizes the applicant’s good conduct prior to joining 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also 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 the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the applicant’s FTR and disrespect offenses as avoidance and difficulty with authority is part of the natural sequela of PTSD symptoms. However, there is no natural sequelae between PTSD or any of the applicant’s other BH conditions and the applicant’s offenses of derelict in the performance of duties, damaging personal property, or striking another Soldier in the face. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered 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, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation –dereliction of duties, damaging other’s personal property, and striking a Soldier in the face. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD, however applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse applicant’s misconduct of dereliction of duties, damaging other’s personal property, and striking a Soldier in the face. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant to warrant a discharge upgrade based on the applicant’s youthful indiscretions. The applicant misconduct involved the applicant’s conscious and deliberate decisions. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (3) 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. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (5) The applicant contends the unit lacked leadership and moral support. The applicant had a hard time adjusting to the Army after realizing everyone was for themselves without a mature noncommissioned officer to lead them. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as there is insuffient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (6) The applicant was humiliated and made a fool of and then discharged for something undeserving. The applicant states no one cared to understand the reasons for these actions. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as the weight of the evidence in the applicant’s official records reflect that the applicant engaged in multiple offenses that warranted discharge in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (7) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant’s misconduct brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By damaging other’s personal property, and striking a Soldier in the face, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – FTRs, disrespect, dereliction of duties, damaging other’s personal property, and striking a Soldier in the face. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (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 AR20210002538 1