1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request is based on the applicant’s honorable service, to include 12 months of meritorious service during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and the combat and racial stress, which led to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression. The mental health conditions consumed the applicant and led to the discharge. The applicant was wrongfully and inequitably separated for a pattern of misconduct, all related to the Army improperly insinuating (sic) itself into the applicant’s marriage, contrary to JAG instructions, then improperly and wrongfully applying the relevant regulations to separate the applicant with an under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was denied the one mandatory rehabilitative transfer, contrary to the regulation. The applicant should have been processed for a medical discharge. The required mental evaluation was contradictory, internally inconsistent, and insufficient to satisfy the guideline and Chapter 14 purpose. The applicant was discharged because of willful misconduct, but the applicant’s actions were not willful or culpable. They were trauma responses which were a result of undiagnosed and untreated PTSD; related major depression; and generalized anxiety disorder. The discharge rendered was in contravention of the statute, Hagel Memo and Supplement instructions. The applicant’s meritorious service and the applicant being a positive contributing member of society, demonstrate, but for the applicant’s PTSD and major depression, the applicant never would have committed the subject acts. The uncontradicted, consistent medical evidence and opinion illustrate the applicant suffered undiagnosed PTSD and related major depression with psychosis at the time of commission of the acts which formed the basis for discharge. The medical opinions are supported by lay statements of fellow Soldiers. Third party statement confirmed the applicant’s immediate supervisor, Sergeant R., was a racist who singled-out and abused the applicant, calling the applicant the N-word and humiliating the applicant daily. The applicant was a victim of hazing in a predominantly white unit. The applicant requested a rehabilitative transfer on three occasions but was wrongfully denied by the commander and there was no waiver requested or granted as set forth in Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 1-16(d). The commander confirmed being advised by JAG to let the civilian authorities handle the applicant’s domestic situation and take military action thereafter, if required. The applicant was never convicted of any civilian offense. The VA determined in rendering an honorable characterization, there was no evidence the applicant was convicted by civilian or military authorities and were minor infractions. The applicant requests an upgrade and narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. Counsel further details the applicant’s service; post service achievements; various medical documents; the applicant’s personal statement; and the contradictions to the Hagel’s Memo instructions. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 January 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 November 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disobeyed a commissioned officer on seven occasions. The applicant made false official statement. The applicant violated a lawful general order on two occasions. The applicant was involved in domestic violence. The applicant disobeyed or disrespected an NCO on three occasions. The applicant was derelict of duty. The applicant failed to report on three occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The immediate commander initially recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions). The commander re-notified the applicant recommending an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 November 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 4 November 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. On 22 November 2010, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 16 December 2010, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 12 January 2011, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / The separation approval authority signed the DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), but did not indicate whether the proceedings were approved, disapproved, or approved with exceptions / substitutions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 January 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 September 2008 – 18 August 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 2 November 2009, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: domestic – civilian victim (off post) and harassment – physical contact (off post). The military police were notified by the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center (CJC), the applicant had been arrested when the applicant and the spouse were involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical when the applicant pushed the spouse causing the spouse to fall to the floor. The applicant kicked the spouse in the thigh; dragged the spouse by the hair across the floor; and grabbed the spouse’s throat and neck. Military Police Report, dated 21 February 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: domestic violence (off post) and assault in the third degree (off post) (20 February 2010). The military police were notified by the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) the applicant and the applicant’s spouse were involved in a verbal altercation which became physical when the applicant struck the spouse in the face with an open hand. The applicant grabbed the spouse by the hair and struck the spouse in the head several times with the fist. The applicant fled the location. The applicant’s unit escorted the applicant to the Fort Carson Police Station and the applicant was detained and later arrested by the CSPD. Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer’s Log, dated 24 March 2010, reflects the applicant’s spouse contacted the Staff Duty NCO (SDNCO) claiming to be attacked by the applicant and requesting help. The SDNCO called the applicant and the applicant hung up on the SDNCO and Command Sergeant Major Y. Memorandum for Record, subject: Conditions of Liberty [Applicant], dated 29 March 2010, reflects the applicant and the applicant’s spouse reconciled in October 2009 after a domestic assault incident, but was moved back into the barracks on 15 February 2010 because of renewed tensions. The applicant was arrested by the Colorado Springs Police for Violation of a Protection Order and Harassment, Class III Misdemeanor, against the spouse. On 22 February 2010, the applicant was released to the unit and issued a no-contact order in addition to a civilian protection order. On 10 March 2010, the spouse informed the applicant’s NCO’s, the applicant was continuing to contact the spouse in person and by phone. FG Article 15, dated 5 April 2010, for: The applicant, on two occasions, did willfully disobey a lawful command from Captain J. D., a superior commissioned officer, to have no contact with the spouse (22 February and 10 March 2010). The applicant did willfully disobey a lawful command from First Lieutenant (1LT) C. C., a superior commissioned officer, to sign in with CQ every four hours between 0600 to 2200 during non-duty days (19 March 2010). The applicant, on three occasions, did willfully disobey a lawful command from 1LT C. C., a superior commissioned officer, to not leave the 2nd Brigade footprint (21, 22, and 25 March 2010). The applicant was disrespectful in deportment toward Sergeant Major (SGM) D. Y., a superior noncommissioned officer, by hanging up to phone on SGM D. Y. while SGM D. Y. was talking to the phone (24 March 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 16 June 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: spouse abuse – civilian victim (on post) and simple assault, consummated by a battery (on post) (16 June 2010). Investigation revealed the applicant and the spouse had a physical altercation when the applicant grabbed the spouse by the arm and pressed the spouse against a fence, forcing the car keys from the spouse. The applicant drove away leaving the spouse on the side of the road. The spouse was treated at the scene for abrasions to the left hand and released. A Be On The Look Out (BOLO) was issued for the applicant and the applicant was escorted the next day by the chain of command. Military Police Report, dated 9 July 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: and spouse abuse – civilian victim (on post); simple assault (on post); and obstruction of justice / eluding police officers. Investigation revealed the applicant and the spouse were involved in a physical altercation when the applicant attempted to rip a cell phone out if the spouse’s hands. The applicant fled the scene and was later located. The spouse was treated for minor lacerations to the right forearm and released. Military Police Report, dated 10 July 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: domestic violence (off post); and harassment – harassing communication by other than telephone (off post); and reckless endangerment (off post). The military police were notified by the El Paso CJC, the applicant was arrested when the applicant and the spouse were involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical when the applicant threw an apple core and a toilet scrubber at the spouse. The spouse attempted to block the scrubber with a mirror causing the mirror to shatter and cut the spouse’s arm. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 26 August 2010, 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 adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct. The psychologist further indicated the applicant does not have a severe mental disorder, but manifest a long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability which was of such severity so as to preclude further military service and may become potentially dangerous to self / others in the future. The applicant provided Initial PTSD (revised) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 4 November 2015, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Major Depressive Disorder; General Anxiety Disorder; and Cannabis Use. The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) Progress Notes, dated 7 October 2015, reflects the applicant reported being the only Black male in the unit and being exposed to mistreatment, abused physical and mentally. The applicant was called the “N” word and was dealing with stress from combat and from racism. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Depression; Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic features; and ethanol alcohol (ETOH). The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs Administrative Decision, dated 2 July 2015, which reflects the VA determined the applicant’s period of service from 8 April 2008 to 19 January 2011 was considered under honorable conditions for VA purposes. There was no evidence the applicant was convicted by civilian or military authorities related to this incident of domestic violence. The counseling’s and/or offenses were considered minor and did not constitute willful and persistent misconduct warranting an other than honorable discharge, when weighed against the applicant’s otherwise honest, faithful, and meritorious service. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two Legal Briefs with Appendices (App.) A through P; App. A – Hagel Memo; App. B – VA Administrative Decision; Apps. C through G – medical documents; Apps. H through J – third party character statements; App. K – two Developmental Counseling Forms (2nd pages); App. L – Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation; App. M – DD Form 214; App. N – three third party character statements; App. O – Skyline College Achieve letter; App. P – two third party character statements; Kurta Memo. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends pursuing a college education and being a faithful and committed member of the church and a good member of society. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD, major depression, and general anxiety affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct. The record shows the applicant underwent a behavioral health evaluation (BHE) on 26 August 2010, which indicates the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The psychologist further indicated the applicant does not have a severe mental disorder, but manifest a long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability which was of such severity so as to preclude further military service and may become potentially dangerous to self / others in the future. The BHE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provided several medical documents, to include medical documents from the VA, which reflect the the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; general anxiety disorder; cannabis use; depression; major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic features; and ethanol alcohol (ETOH). The applicant reported having stress dealing with combat as well as racism. The diagnoses and the report of racism was after the applicant was discharged. The applicant contends the required mental evaluation was contradictory, internally inconsistent, and insufficient. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-32, provides mental status evaluations conducted by a psychologist, or master-level, licensed clinical social worker is required for a Soldier being processed for separation under chapter 14. The applicant contends racism and hazing by members of the chain of command. The applicant provided third party statements which attested to the contention of racism and hazing by members of the command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the racism and hazing. The applicant contends the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the Army improperly insinuated itself into the applicant’s marriage, contrary to JAG instruction. The AMHRR reflects the civilian authorities contacted the military police on multiple occasions regarding domestic issues involving the applicant and the spouse. The military police as well as the applicant’s spouse contacted the command for assistance regarding the matter. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command denied the applicant the one mandatory rehabilitative transfer, contrary to the regulation. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2) (previously 1- 16d(2)), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The AMHRR is void of the memorandum from the separation authority to confirm whether the rehabilitative transfer requirement was waived. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends the VA has determined the applicant’s service was honorable. The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 2 July 2015, which reflects the VA determined the period of service from 8 April 2008 to 19 January 2011, as under honorable conditions for VA purposes. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge. The applicant contends pursuing a college education and being a faithful and committed member of the church and a good member of society. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and good conduct after leaving the Army. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: due to service-connected disability for PTSD at 100%. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found his PTSD condition did exist while on active duty (per JLV). (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, based on the information in the applicant’s medical record, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions. Problems arising from PTSD often contribute to self- isolation, anger outbursts, aggressive behavior, intrusive memories, nightmares, interpersonal difficulties, poor sleep, and self-medication with drugs/alcohol. Pronounced and repeated acts of domestic violence toward his spouse, as well as violating commander-directed restraining orders, is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions, and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The SPD codes identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable, and the SPD code and narrative reason are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. (2) The applicant contends PTSD, major depression, and general anxiety affected behavior and should have been medically dischared. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records. It revealed the applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD. However, pronounced, and repeated acts of domestic violence toward his spouse, as well as violating commander-directed restraining orders, is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions. Therefore, in this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the required mental evaluation was contradictory, internally inconsistent, and insufficient. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends racism and hazing by members of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of minor offenses, however the Board determined that there is not sufficient evidence, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (6) The applicant contends the Army improperly insinuated itself into the applicant’s marriage, contrary to JAG instruction. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (7) The applicant contends the command denied the applicant the one mandatory rehabilitative transfer, contrary to the regulation. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (8) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board 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 to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Therefore, with pronounced and repeated acts of domestic violence toward the spouse, as well as violating commander-directed restraining orders, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (9) The applicant contends the VA has determined the applicant’s service was honorable. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (10) The applicant contends pursuing a college education and being a faithful and committed member of the church and a good member of society. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, no law or regulation provides an unfavorable discharge that must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board may consider the outstanding post-service conduct and the applicant’s performance and conduct during the service under review during proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board decided the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined 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 BH diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of pronounced and repeated acts of domestic violence toward a spouse, as well as violating commander-directed restraining orders. 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, 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 AR20210002605 1