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 believes the type of discharge was inappropriately given. The DD Form 214 reflects many accommodations during the applicant’s time of service including imminent danger pay. The applicant believes the commanding officer was making an example of the applicant unfairly and gave the applicant an unfair discharge. The applicant was suffering from PTSD which was not yet diagnosed despite requesting in patient treatment more than once which was denied. The applicant attempted suicide and then was given the treatment the applicant requested. The applicant was not given the opportunity to do a change of command as the applicant should have been. The commanding officer had it in for the applicant and the rest of the fellow Soldiers in the unit, the applicant believes being railroaded with a bad paper discharge. Due to this unfair discharge status the applicant is not able to meet personal health needs via VA as well as educational benefits and other accommodations given to honorably discharged Veterans. The applicant has been homeless for a year and is still struggling with PTSD and needs treatment. The applicant desires an upgrade to allow the applicant to receive the services the applicant believes were earned during military service. The applicant has struggled with this for a long time, and it is the applicant’s biggest struggle and barrier to getting the applicant’s life back. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 November 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Two offenses of using illegal drugs (D-Amphetamines); Two DUIs with two General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimands; Four days AWOL; Breaking restriction; and, Three failures to report to appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 October 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 13 October 2010, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 November 2006 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B20 Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 11 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (24 March 2008 – 19 March 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AFC-CS, ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 April 2010, for wrongfully using D-Amphetamines (between 2 January and 5 January 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 27 May 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (Lawton City Code 23-520.A) (Off Post); Insurance Required (Lawton City code 23-103) (Off Post); Failed to Obey Traffic Light (Lawton City code 23-204.A) (Off Post); and, T.O.C. Liquor (Lawton City Code 4-107) (On Post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 June 2010, reflects the applicant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On 27 May 2010, a Lawton Police Officer observed the applicant fail to obey a traffic light while driving. The officer then initiated a traffic stop. Upon making contact with the applicant, the officer detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant. The officer conducted a standardized field sobriety test, which the applicant did not complete satisfactorily. The applicant was apprehended for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol and transported to the Lawton Police Department, where the applicant provided a breath sample which indicated a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11 percent. It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Oklahoma or on Fort Sill with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 11 June 2010; and, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 14 June 2010. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 18 June 2010, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP (D-Amphetamine), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 14 June 2010. Military Police Report, dated 24 June 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Actual Physical Control of Vehicle While Having a Blood Alcohol Content of .08 or more (OK Code 11- 902.A.1) (On Post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 1 July 2010, reflects the applicant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On 24 June 2010, a Fort Sill Police Officer stopped the applicant at Bentley Gate. The officer noted a smell of strong odor of alcohol on the applicant. This prompted the officer to conduct a Standardized Field Sobriety Test, which the applicant failed. The officer apprehended the applicant and transported the applicant to the Fort Sill Police Station. There the applicant provided a breath sample which reflected a BAC of 0.13 percent, well over the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAC to operate a motor vehicle on Fort Sill. FG Article 15, dated 28 September 2010, for wrongfully using D-Amphetamines (between 11 June and 14 June 2010); being absent from the unit on or about 11 June 2010 until on or about 14 June 2010; broke restriction on or about 27 May 2010; failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 17 April 2010, 18 May 2010, and 21 May 2010. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 days (AWOL, 11 June 2010 – 14 June 2010) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 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. It was noted Soldier’s PTSD screen was high (PCL-M= 72 especially for insomnia) but the applicant does not have clinically significant signs which warrant disposition through MEB channels. Report of Medical History, dated 19 August 2010, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD, Depressive D/O, and Anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214. 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: 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends the commanding officer was trying to make an example of the applicant and gave the applicant an unfair discharge. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (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 not being given the opportunity to change command as the applicant should have been. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(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 applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed PTSD. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 4 August 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. It was noted Soldier’s PTSD screen was high (PCL-M= 72 especially for insomnia) but the applicant does not have clinically significant signs which warrant disposition through MEB channels. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. Report of Medical History, dated 19 August 2010, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD, Depressive D/O, and Anxiety. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits 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. 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. The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential 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 which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Major Depression, Panic Disorder, depression with anxiety, Dysthymic Disorder, and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Depression, Major Depression, Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia, depression with anxiety, and Dysthymic Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the applicant potentially has an in-service diagnosis of PTSD, this is only partially mitigating for the misconduct. Self-medicating PTSD symptoms with alcohol or drugs is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD and thus mitigates but does not wholly excuse the applicant’s two D-Amphetamines positive UAs and the applicant’s two DUIs. The applicant’s FTRs and AWOL misconduct is also partially mitigated as avoidance type behaviors are part of the sequela of PTSD; the mitigation for the AWOL is only partial as it appears the applicant made a conscious decision to go AWOL to avoid the consequences of his other misconduct. Breaking restriction is not mitigated. (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 while the applicant’s PTSD provides some mitigation for misconduct, the sheer number and seriousness of infractions do not outweigh the current characterization of service. While most of the misconduct is mitigated to a degree the applicant retains a degree of responsibility for the misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) 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 on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. (2) The applicant contends the commanding officer was trying to make an example of the applicant and gave the applicant an unfair discharge. The Board considered this contention, however the Board determined that there is no evidence in official records, 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. There is no evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The applicant contends not being given the opportunity to change command as the applicant should have been. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. (4) The applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed PTSD. 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. The Board determined that while the applicant’s PTSD provides partial mitigation for applicant’s use of substances, AWOL, three FTRs, and two DUIs, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD completely outweighed the bases of separation. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits, and 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. (6) The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. The Board determined the bases of separation do not warrant further relief other than the applicant’s prior upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. 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, applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD mitigates some portion of the numerous and significant acts of misconduct, the evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD completely excused the misconduct or outweighed the basis of the applicant’s separation. The applicant’s remaining responsibility for the numerous serious acts of misconduct prevented the applicant’s service being sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable characterization. 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, and 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 AR20210002629 1