1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in 48 months of service with no other adverse action. The applicant requests the Board consider the applicant’s character preceding the incident on 18 November 2012, which was consistent with or better than the provided Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), which documented the Relief-For-Cause incident of being drunk on duty. It was observed on the Report of Mental Status Evaluation the applicant exhibited a positive screen for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant was beginning a cycle of appointments related to PTSD at the time of the applicant’s separation. Since the discharge, the applicant has been taking courses dedicated to self-improvement. The applicant has not had a drink of alcohol since November 2013 and has had consistent participation in alcoholism recovery. The applicant is committed to completing the four-year business degree. The applicant requests an upgrade to pursue employment without the prejudice which may be attached to the discharge. The applicant’s conduct now and in the future will support such an action. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant assaulted the applicant’s spouse, S. C., on 13 January 2013. The applicant was found drunk on duty on 18 November 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 1 March 2013, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 March 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 November 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 / GED / 141 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman / 4 years, 4 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 November 2008 – 29 November 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 September 2009 – 28 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2012 –2 November 2012 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Washington State Patrol, Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), dated 18 November 2012, reflects the applicant’s BAC test results as .312. FG Article 15, dated 13 March 2013, for being found drunk while on duty (18 November 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,152 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty 30 days; and an oral reprimand. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 19 November 2012 and 19 February 2013, for being drunk on duty; Army Substance Abuse Program enrollment; and being reported for domestic abuse. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 January 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant met medical retention requirements. The applicant screened positive for PTSD but did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of the condition when determining final disposition. Victim Advocacy Program Client Intake form, dated 18 February 2013, reflects the applicant was being investigated by the Puyallup Pierce County Sheriff’s office for domestic abuse when according to the applicant’s spouse, the applicant and the spouse were arguing when the applicant picked up a glass, made eye contact with the spouse and threw it straight at the spouse, hitting the spouse in the face, close to the left eye, so hard it bounced off the face and hit the wall, leaving a slight dent. The form further reveals the applicant has been physically and verbally abusive to the spouse, threatening to kill the spouse, and verbally abusive to the child. The spouse was fearful to disclose the abuse because of the applicant’s PTSD. Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, Temporary Order for Protection Order and Notice of Hearing, dated 19 February 2013, reflects the applicant’s spouse petitioned and the court found an emergency existed to issue a protection order to the applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; unofficial college transcript; Oklahoma State University, Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid letter; Oklahoma State University President’s Leadership Society letter; National Society of Leadership and Success Announcement; Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report; Enlisted Record Brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends taking college courses dedicated to self-improvement; not having a drink of alcohol since November 2013 and consistently being involved in alcoholism recovery; and being committed to completing the four-year business degree. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 a 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. The applicant contends being screened for PTSD and receiving a positive result. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 January 2013, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant met medical retention requirements. The applicant screened positive for PTSD, but the condition did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of the condition when determining final disposition. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The AMHRR indicates the applicant was found drunk on duty and involved in domestic abuse. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c states circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of discharge. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends attending college courses dedicated to self-improvement; not having a drink of alcohol since November 2013 and consistently being involved in alcoholism recovery; and being committed to completing the four-year business degree. 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 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, and the applicant's statement and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, applicant’s PTSD contributed to and mitigates the misconduct of being drunk on duty. However, the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s domestic violence offense as there is no natural sequelae between PTSD and perpetrating domestic violence. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determined that while the applicant drunk on duty offense is mitigated by the applicant’s PTSD, the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offense of assault on the applicant’s spouse. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being screened for PTSD and receiving a positive result. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the applicant’s offense of being drunk on duty, the Board determined that it did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic assault offense. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s PTSD and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and found it non-persuasive given the severity of the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic assault offense. The Board also determined that applicant’s discharge was appropriate in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5c because the applicant’s misconduct of domestic abuse offense provides the basis for a characterization of discharge. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant’s misconduct brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing domestic assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (4) The applicant contends attending college courses dedicated to self-improvement; not having a drink of alcohol since November 2013 and consistently being involved in alcoholism recovery; and being committed to completing the four-year business degree. The Board considered this condition and determined that, while the applicant’s post-service accomplishments are commendable, the applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not outweigh the severity of the medically unmitigated domestic abuse offense. (5) 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. 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 after applying liberal consideration of all the evidence because, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigated the applicant drunk on duty offense, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated domestic violence offense. The Board also considered the applicant’s equity contentions, including the applicant’s PTSD, the applicant’s good service and combat tour, the applicant’s post-service accomplishments, and the applicant’s contention that the applicant’s misconduct was an isolated incident but determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not outweigh the applicant’s domestic violence offense. 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 AR20210002607 1