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 applicant to use the GI Bill and start school. In February 2016, the applicant was arrested for a road rage incident wherein the applicant took it too far. August of the same year the applicant was convicted of three misdemeanors and put on probation for two years with the second year being administrative under Georgia’s First Offender Act. On 29 August 2017, the applicant will have completed the terms of the probation and will no longer be on probation and the conviction will be wiped clean. If the applicant gets accepted into college, the applicant desires to continue what the applicant learned as an EMT and work towards going to medical school and become a doctor of emergency medicine. The incident which took place was well out of the applicant’s character. The applicant has never had a disciplinary action against the applicant in the five years of military service until this chapter. The court believed the applicant could use a second chance and the applicant wants to use this second chance to become a doctor. The discharge upgrade would greatly aid in this endeavor. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 August 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 (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Sec II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 November 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 29 August 2016, the applicant was convicted by civil court for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, Reckless Conduct and received a sentence which included a total 24 months of confinement. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 November 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 December 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 October 2011 / 6 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11BIV, Infantryman / 5 years, 3 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (16 October 2012 – 7 February 2013; 25 August 2013 – 17 December 2013; 2 July 2014 – 20 October 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Superior Court of Green County, State of Georgia Document, dated 29 August 2016, reflects the applicant was found guilty of: Count 2: Aggressive Driving Count 3: Pointing Gun or Pistol at Another Count 4: Reckless Conduct The applicant was sentenced to 12 months confinement on all counts to be served consecutively, fined $1500 on count 2, and 24 months probation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 November 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Irritability and Anger (R45.4), Problems related to Other Legal Circumstances. VA Notes, dated 1 October 2021, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, unspecified; Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; NPRC Letter; two DD Forms 214; Service Record; third-party letter; Superior Court documents; VA medical records. 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) Section II, Paragraph 14-5, prescribes conditions which subject a Soldier to discharge and reduction in grade. A Soldier may be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if one of the following conditions is present. This includes similar adjudication in juvenile proceedings: 1) A punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM 2002, as amended; 2) The sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. Adjudication in juvenile proceedings includes adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, wayward minor, or youthful offender; Initiation of separation action is not mandatory. Although the conditions established in a (1) or (2), above, are present, the immediate commander must also consider whether the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. If the immediate commander initiates separation action, the case will be processed through the chain of command to the separation authority for appropriate action. A Soldier convicted by a civil court or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court will be reduced or considered for reduction. 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 “JKB” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, section II, misconduct (civil conviction). 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: 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-5 states that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the applicant had been sentenced by civilian authorities to 12 months of confinement and 24 months of probation. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. 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 third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct during and after leaving the Army. 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. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate. (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 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate 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’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of Aggressive Driving, Pointing a pistol at another, and reckless driving that lead to the applicant’s civilian conviction because, while there is a nexus between PTSD and anger, the Board’s Medical Advisor found Insufficient evidence that applicant’s PTSD contributed to the incident that led to the applicant’s civil conviction. Instead, the incident appears to be associated with applicant’s long standing, frequent issues with anger management that originated pre-service as reflected in the applicant’s official medical records. The Board Medical Advisor also found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder does not mitigate the applicant’s above-mentioned offenses as there is no natural sequela of symptoms associated with the applicant’s offenses and the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board’s Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – civil conviction for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, and Reckless Conduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5c authorizes separation when circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The Board found that the applicant’s discharge for the applicant’s civil conviction for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, and Reckless Conduct reflect is proper and equitable due to the severity of the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours and good character as supported by third-party statements that speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered this contention and 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By receiving a civil conviction for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, and Reckless Conduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities d. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence, the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – civil conviction for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, and Reckless Conduct. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of equity, including that applicant’s good service, the applicant’s behavioral health conditions, and that the applicant’s civil conviction for Aggressive Driving, Pointing a Gun or Pistol at Another, and Reckless Conduct was an isolated incident but determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant a discharge upgrade based on the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct. 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 AR20210002553 1