1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was discharged from the Army in May of 2015, for alcohol rehabilitation failure (chapter 9). The applicant would like to rejoin the United States Army to serve country the correct way. When the applicant first joined the Army, the applicant was immature, and did not realize the full potential and the great opportunity the military offered. Since the discharge the applicant has had no alcohol related incidence or any other. The applicant has matured and learned from mistakes. The applicant has been working construction and is grateful for the opportunities given with this company, but it does not give the same fulfillment as the military. The applicant would greatly appreciate a second opportunity at being a Soldier in the United States Army. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 September 2022, and by a 3-2 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. CH Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 22 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 January 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Soldier was deemed an Army Substance Abuse Program failure. In addition, as it pertains to characterization of service, the Soldier was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on two separate occasions, disrespected a noncommissioned officer, and failed to report to place of duty on divers' occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 January 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2012 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / HS Graduate / 3 years, 3 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) includes two Article 15s, however both are illegible. The Commander's Report reflects: Company Grade Article 15, dated 31 July 2013; violation of Article 86, UCMJ x three; violation of Article 91, UCMJ; reduction to the grade of Private (E2): extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days. Field Grade Article 15, dated 4 December 2014; violation of Article 111, UCMJ; reduction to the grade of Private (E1); forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 16 September 2016, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken Driving (on post). General Officer of Reprimand, dated 20 October 2014, reflects, the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on 30 August 2014. A Security Forces Officer observed the applicant drive a vehicle, park it, and then enter a cab. The applicant attempted to enter the Richardson gate in the cab, the Security Forces Officer detected an odor of alcohol emitting from the applicant. The applicant failed a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and provided a breath sample with a result of 155 percent. Summary of Army Substance Abuse Program Rehabilitation Failure (memo), dated 29 October 2014, reflects the applicant's rehabilitation team met on 16 September 2014, at which time the applicant was enrolled in treatment and agreed to comply with all treatment requirements. Currently, all ASAP requirements were reviewed, including the requirement to maintain all scheduled appointments in addition to maintaining abstinence from all illicit substances, alcohol and taking all prescribed medications as directed. The applicant's treatment plan included abstinence from alcohol and all mood-altering substances, required attendance to all scheduled treatment sessions, and a recommendation for minimum random weekly Breathalyzer Testing (BAT) and Urinalysis Testing (UA). On 21 October 2014, ASAP was informed by CPT B., the applicant received a DUI on 12 October 2014. The rehabilitation team meeting was held on 29 September 2014 at which time the command discharged the applicant from the ASAP program as a Rehabilitation Failure. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary dated 23 December 2014, reflects a diagnosis of PTSD; Adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety and Alcohol use disorder moderate. Medical Evaluation Board Proceeding, dated 29 December 2014, reflects a diagnosis of Alcohol use disorder, moderate. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Online application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is working in construction and grateful for the opportunities given with this company. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (4) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates on 16 September 2014, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 21 October 2014, ASAP was informed by CPT B., the applicant received a DUI on 12 October 2014. The rehabilitation team meeting was held on 29 September 2014 at which time the command discharged the applicant from the ASAP program as a Rehabilitation Failure. 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant's AMHRR includes a Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, dated 23 December 2014, which reflects a diagnosis of PTSD; Adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, and Alcohol use disorder moderate. Medical Evaluation Board Proceeding, dated 29 December 2014, reflects a diagnosis of Alcohol use disorder, moderate. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends obtaining employment as a construction worker. 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Chronic PTSD due to childhood trauma. (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 Depression and Adjustment Disorder. (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 was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and chronic PTSD. While applicant's PTSD was noted to be related to childhood trauma and does not fall under liberal consideration guidance, applicant was also diagnosed with Depression that may have contributed to applicant's Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure due to the nexus between Depression and self-medicating with substances. There is no natural sequelae between Depression or an Adjustment Disorder and disrespect or FTRs. However, applicant already has an HD. The Board's Medical Advisor supports an RE Code change to 3. (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 Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Chronic PTSD due to childhood trauma outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure - for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant was discharged for alcohol rehabilitation failure while enrolled in the ASAP. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted not to change the RE code due to applicant's adjustment disorder, depression, chronic PTSD, alcohol use disorder and ASAP alcohol rehabilitation failure. (3) The applicant contends obtaining employment as a construction worker. 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. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged with the proper RE code due to BH conditions and alcohol use disorder diagnosis. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (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 AR20210002547 1