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 applicant received several awards and accolades since the incident. The applicant expresses discontent with the malfeasance of the chain of command when recommending the applicant for a general discharge from the Army. On 28 December 2016, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) for an event which had been adjudicated by the previous commander, Major (MAJ) A. S. The discharge was predicated on the next commander’s, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) F. T., preconceptions about the applicant’s character for affairs which transpired before the applicant’s arrival. These preconceived notions and irreconcilable differences engendered an everlasting turbulent relationship between LTC F. T. and the applicant, which ultimately led to an unjust discharge. The discharge is not indicative of the applicant’s service while being a junior enlisted Soldier. On 4 January 2015, the applicant received a driving while impaired (DWI) at the entrance gate of Fort Bragg. The applicant was attempting to enter the installation while operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08. This was deemed an isolated incident by the applicant’s chain of command at the time, which resulted from a temporary lapse of judgment. The applicant believes the occurrence should not blight all the applicant’s contributions and achievements while being an active duty Servicemember. The ramifications included but were not limited to: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, permanently placed in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); a loss of post driving privileges for a year; enrollment in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP); and additional sanctions from civilian authorities. The civilian courts found the applicant guilty and instructed the applicant to complete a 12-month probationary period, which included a fine and 24 hours of community service. During this period, the applicant was prohibited from driving in the state of North Carolina. The applicant is fully aware the actions could have led to a greater calamity. It is inequitable to be deemed subservient by an individual who held an unjust bias, especially when a punishment had been rendered. The applicant would have contested the discharge, but the ordeal took a psychological toll on the applicant, which debilitated the applicant’s passion to soldier. The current discharge carries a stigma which embarrasses the applicant and the applicant’s family. The applicant was born into a military family and the applicant’s parents were honorably discharged. The applicant does not want the prejudices of one person to ruin a family tradition. The applicant joined the military to continue the family’s legacy and receive educational assistance in completing the applicant’s Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree. This discharge has wrongfully taken the opportunity to fulfill those aspirations. The applicant enclosed substantive evidence which corroborates the applicant’s claims, which includes the initial adjudication, developmental counseling, a typed memorandum presenting the applicant’s contributions and achievements, and the applicant’s civilian probationary terms. 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 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 November 2016 / The applicant was notified by LTC F. T., the battalion commander. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 January 2015, the applicant wrongfully operated a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.08. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 December 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 February 2014 / 4 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Bachelor’s Degree / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Serious Incident Report, dated 4 January 2015, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and open container in a vehicle, on post (4 January 2015). The applicant was operating a motor vehicle attempting to enter the entry control point at Fort Bragg, NC, while playing the music loudly. The applicant was instructed to turn the music down by the guard and in the process inadvertently reeved the engine. The guard approached the vehicle and noticed the vehicle smelled like alcohol. The officer noted an open container in the vehicle. A breathalyzer was administered, which resulted in the applicant’s blood alcohol content of .08 percent. The applicant admitted to having three beers and was returning to post after attending a club and going to Waffle House. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 2 February 2015, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired (DWI). After being stopped at an Access Control Point on 4 January 2015, the guard detected an odor of alcohol emitting from the applicant. An open container was in the applicant’s vehicle and an intoximeter determined the applicant’s BAC to be .08 percent. Law Enforcement Report – Initial, undated, reflects on 11 July 2015, the applicant was investigated for assault. Investigation revealed the applicant and S. W. were involved in a verbal altercation which escalated to a physical altercation when the applicant slammed S. W. to the ground and S. W.’s head struck the ground. The Fort Bragg Emergency Medical Services responded and S. W. was transported to Womack Army Medical Center for evaluation. The applicant fled the scene. The applicant was escorted to the Provost Marshal’s Office the next day and invoked the rights. Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 17 August 2015, reflects an investigation was conducted regarding the events of 11 July 2015, which involved possible underage drinking, hindering medical assistance, and assaults. The investigation officer (IO) found because of lack of witnesses or possible collaboration of witnesses after the incident, the altercation between the applicant and S. W. was very unclear. The IO did not believe the applicant had the intention of causing harm to PFC S. W. The IO was unable to recommend nonjudicial punishment be imposed at the time. FG Article 15, dated 14 April 2016, for unlawfully slamming Private First Class S. W. to the ground twice with the hands (11 July 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 and forfeiture of $981 pay (suspended). The applicant appealed and the appeal was denied. The U.S. District Court Eastern North Carolina, Judgment in a Criminal Court, dated 1 June 2016, reflects the applicant was found guilty of Level 5 – DWI and Open Container. The applicant was sentenced to probation for 12 months and fined $100. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. a. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None b. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Condition(s): Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 October 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Memorandum for Record, Contributions and Achievements; Serious Incident Report; Developmental Counseling Forms; GOMOR documents; U.S. District Court documents; separation documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) 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 that the applicant’s discharge is inequitable because the incident had already been adjudged by the applicant’s previous chain of command. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the MG J.S. imposed a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 2 February 2015 for the applicant’s offense of driving while impaired (DWI) on 4 January 2015. The AMHRR also reflects the basis for the applicant’s discharge was a DWI, an incident the applicant was charged with on 4 January 2015. The applicant contends a new commander’s preconceived notions about the applicant’s character was the result of an unjust discharge. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the basis for the discharge was a DWI, an incident the applicant was charged with on 4 January 2015. The battalion commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation on 10 November 2016. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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. The applicant contends the ordeal had a psychological and debilitated affect, which prevented the applicant from contesting the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 October 2016, which indicates 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: Occupational Problem. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's MDD 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 the applicant’s MDD partially mitigates the applicant’s DUI offense based on the nexus between depression and self-medicating with substances, as such there is mitigation for the alcohol use; However, there is no natural sequelae between depression and assault; therefore the assault is not mitigagated. (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 although there was partial mitigation, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s MDD outweighed the applicant’s DUI and assault. The totality of the applicant’s disciplinary record was considered to include assault, which has no connection with MDD. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends that the applicant’s discharge is inequitable because the incident had already been adjudged by the applicant’s previous chain of command. (2) The applicant contends a new commander’s preconceived notions about the applicant’s character was the result of an unjust discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment from command and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant making the decision to drive after drinking, and assault is not an acceptable response to dealing with unfair treatment from command, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive after considering the partially mitigated basis of separation and considering the totality of the applicant’s disciplinary record to include the DUI and Field Grade Article 15 for assault. (4) The applicant contends the ordeal had a psychological and debilitated affect, which prevented the applicant from contesting 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 no relief was warranted given that the applicant’s MDD did not outweigh the basis of separation as well as the applicant’s assault. (5) The applicant contends good service. 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By getting a DUI and committing assault the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s MDD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of DUI, as well as the assault found in the applicant’s file. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002627 1