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 and a change to narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, since the applicant's discharge, the applicant has matured and understands the applicant was to blame for the separation. The applicant was going through a bad time because the applicant's spouse was cheating. It does not excuse the applicant's actions in any manner, but it was the basis for the applicant's actions. The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on Fort Carson, and fled the scene. The applicant tried to hide the accident by lying to the chain of command. The applicant kept digging a hole to try to get out, which proves the applicant was not mature enough. The applicant was recommended for promotion and was told on the morning of the incident, the applicant was going to the E-6 / Staff Sergeant (SSG) board for the following month. The applicant accepted the punishment under Article 15, which consisted of a forfeiture of a half month pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. The applicant retained the rank, but in a Special Forces unit, the applicant was not held in high regard. The applicant did attend a retention board and the board found the one mistake, although it was a massive misstep, was only the applicant's first major offense. The board closed, allowing the applicant to remain on active service, but the applicant would have to serve a one-year probationary period. The group commander found it best the applicant be separated from the Army. After the applicant was released, the applicant was able to find work, but not the dream job. The applicant was staying on top of the bills and contributing back to society. The applicant was working for Verizon Wireless in a call center and found the time to apply for benefits. The applicant was provided ten days to out-process from the service and did not receive the Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) experience to understand what benefits were available to the applicant. The applicant found out the applicant could receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits with a general discharge and pursued a Bachelor's degree. The applicant met the person who would become the applicant's spouse and who was in the service. The spouse noticed the applicant had issues and encouraged the applicant to seek help through the VA. The applicant was receiving treatment at the VA for PSTD and for the applicant's sleeping habits already. Once the applicant started receiving the correct help, the applicant noticed the difference and started volunteering once a week at the Washington D.C Veterans Administration Medical Center. The applicant obtained employment at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); finished the Bachelor of Computer Engineering Technology, earning a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.73, graduating Magna Cum Laude. The applicant excelled, earning various certifications and accreditations, providing information technology support as well as being the Physical Security Officer. The applicant is looking toward earning the ten years of federal service award. The applicant desires the ability to not be ashamed and the stigma of the general (under honorable conditions) characterization for a mistake the applicant made staring at the applicant for the rest of the applicant's. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade and narrative reason change. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 August 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, admittance of guilt, lack of aggravation of the nature of the misconduct, length of time since the misconduct, and post-service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them 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: 20 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 December 2009 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 89B20, Ammunition Specialist / 7 years, 7 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 January 2005 - 3 December 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (21 November 2005 - 21 November 2006); Iraq (27 August 2009 - 7 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, AFCM-2CS, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2010 - 30 May 2011 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Five Sworn Statements reflect the applicant was questioned by officers and noncommissioned officers regarding a hit and run accident in which the applicant indicated the applicant's friend was driving the vehicle involved in the accident, but the applicant later admitted to being the one involved in the accident. FG Article 15, dated 31 May 2012, for, on two occasions, making false official statements to Major M. L. and Sergeant Major T. D., to wit: "I was not involved in a car accident," "My girlfriend has my Honda Civic in Salt Lake City, Utah," and "My girlfriend was driving the vehicle." (29 May 2012). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,331 pay per month for two months (the portion of the punishment extending to the forfeiture of $500, suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant provided Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 June 2012, which reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant provided Orders 226-0021, dated 13 August 2012, which reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 20 August 2012 from the Regular Army. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a VA letter, dated 23 January 2019, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent combined service- connected disability. The letter does not disclose the medical conditions evaluated. The applicant provided Disabilities - VA/DoD eBenefits webpage, undated, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD (to include depression), effective 17 January 2018. The applicant provided Adult Preventive and Chronic Care Flowsheet, undated, which reflects under the list of the applicant's chronic illnesses: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two self-authored statements; separation out-processing documents; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; civilian medical records; three VA letters; VA eBenefits webpage; official college transcripts; three USDA Performance Appraisals; USDA Recommendation and Approval of Awards; USDA Employment Offer; résumé; USDA Identification Card; Grantham University Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering Technology Degree, Magna Cum Laude; Army Review Boards Agency letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends volunteering once a week at the Washington D.C Veterans Administration Medical Center; obtaining employment at the USDA; completing the Bachelor Degree in Computer Engineering Technology, Magna Cum Laude, earning a GPA of 3.73. The applicant excelled earning various certifications and accreditations, providing support in information technology as well as being the Physical Security Officer. The applicant is looking toward earning the ten years of federal service award. 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's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 and other mental health conditions affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnosis of PTSD and Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability by the VA for PTSD (to include depression). The applicant provided a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, which shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 June 2012, which reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 volunteering once a week at the Washington D.C Veterans Administration Medical Center; obtaining employment at the USDA, providing support in information technology as well as being the Physical Security Officer; completing the Bachelor Degree in Computer Engineering Technology, Magna Cum Laude, earning a GPA of 3.73. The applicant is looking toward earning the ten years of federal service award. 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/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: 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's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD 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 although the applicant has a BH diagnosis of PTSD it is not a mitigating factor for the applicant's misconduct. Leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run and making a false official statement are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. Rather, the applicant's behaviors appear to be conscious and willful. (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, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - making false official statements about a hit and run vehicle accident. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that no other relief was warranted other than an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. (2) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior which led to the discharge. 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 that the applicant's PTSD was not connected to the misconduct, and therefore did not mitigate the applicant's basis of separation. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on determining the applicant's current characterization of service was inequitable based on length and quality of service, to include combat service, admittance of guilt, lack of aggravation of the nature of the misconduct, length of time since the misconduct, and post-service accomplishments. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that relief was warranted after reviewing the totality of the applicant's service record. (5) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board found this contention valid and determined an upgrade in characterization for this reason in addition to the above listed reasoning. (6) The applicant contends volunteering once a week at the Washington D.C. Veterans Administration Medical Center; obtaining employment at the USDA, providing support in information technology as well as being the Physical Security Officer; completing the Bachelor Degree in Computer Engineering Technology, Magna Cum Laude, earning a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.73. The applicant is looking toward earning the ten years of federal service award. The Board found this contention valid and determined an upgrade in characterization for this reason in addition to the above listed reasoning. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, admittance of guilt, lack of aggravation of the nature of the misconduct, length of time since the misconduct, and post-service accomplishments. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, admittance of guilt, lack of aggravation of the nature of the misconduct, length of time since the misconduct, and post-service accomplishments. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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, as the offense admitted to by the applicant is a Serious Offense for which a 14-12 c elimination is authorized. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002619 1