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, after returning from Afghanistan, the applicant was dealing with undiagnosed PTSD issues. The applicant tried seeking help from the chain of command and the hospital. As part of a Rear-Detachment unit, the applicant was not getting the necessary help. The applicant states informing the chain of command of missing a flight and would be late coming back from leave but the unit initiated UCMJ action which subsequently led to the discharge. The applicant had no previous UCMJ actions, and no law enforcement issues since the discharge. The Veteran’s Affairs has granted the applicant a 70 percent service- connected disability for PTSD. 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, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent from unit from 28 December 2011 through 6 January 2012. The applicant failed to report on numerous occasions; refused to conduct personal hygiene; refused to conduct physical training; did not show up to extra duty and broke restriction on or about 14 March 2012. The applicant failed to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and disrespected superior noncommission officers on multiple occasions. The applicant failed to bring inspectable items to formation on 5 March 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 3 April 2012, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 April 2010 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (30 April 2011 – 2 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Commander’s Report dated 3 April 2021, reflects a Field Grade Article 15 dated 2 February 2012. The applicant was found guilty of one specification of article 86, absent without leave. The punishment imposed was Reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 15 February 2012, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment, forfeiture of $745 pay per month for two months, imposed on 2 February 2012, was vacated. The vacation was based on the applicant being found guilty of one specification of Article 86, for failure to report. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 28 December 2011; and, From “AWOL” to “Present for Duty (PDY),” effective 6 January 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 days (AWOL, 28 December 2011 – 5 January 2012) / Returned to Military Control j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 March 2012, 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: anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. Report of Medical History, dated13 March 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety. The applicant provided a VA Rating Decision dated 11 April 2013, reflects the applicant was awarded a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and panic disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 149; VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states having no law enforcement issues. 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 coping with undiagnosed PTSD issues. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided a VA Rating Decision, dated 11 April 2013, which reflects the applicant was awarded a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD with major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and panic disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 1 March 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE indicates a diagnosis of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends chain of command did not help with issues. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends no law enforcement issues since the discharge. 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: Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder and PTSD. (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, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, and PTSD. Applicant’s PTSD is also service connected by the VA. (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 BH conditions provide partial medical mitigation for the misconduct that led to separation. Specifically, given the nexus between PTSD, avoidance, and difficulty with authority, there may have been some association between applicant’s PTSD and the FTRs, being absent from the unit, and disrespect. Conversely, there is no natural sequelae and no evidence in the medical record that any of applicant’s BH conditions contributed to refusing to conduct personal hygiene or physical training, not showing up to extra duty, breaking restriction, failing to obey orders to include going off post, driving applicant’s vehicle, and not getting off the phone when being spoken to, and failing to bring inspectable items to formation. (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 Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – refusing to conduct personal hygiene or physical training, not showing up to extra duty, breaking restriction, failing to obey orders to include going off post, driving applicant’s vehicle, and not getting off the phone when being spoken to, and failing to bring inspectable items to formation– for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends coping with undiagnosed PTSD issues. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, however, the applicant’s PTSD does not excuse or mitigate applicant’s misconduct of refusing to conduct personal hygiene or physical training, not showing up to extra duty, breaking restriction, failing to obey orders to include going off post, driving applicant’s vehicle, and not getting off the phone when being spoken to, and failing to bring inspectable items to formation. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends chain of command did not help with issues. 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 was given multiple chances but continued with the misconduct creating a pattern. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends no law enforcement issues since the discharge. 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. 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 applicant’s Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of refusing to conduct personal hygiene or physical training, not showing up to extra duty, breaking restriction, failing to obey orders to include going off post, driving applicant’s vehicle, and not getting off the phone when being spoken to, and failing to bring inspectable items to formation. 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 AR20210002587 1