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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request is based on the evidence of experiencing mental health issues prior to discharge. The applicant provided an official letter from the psychiatrist who treated the applicant at a VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) Hospital since 2012. The psychiatrist remarked on what was observed of the applicant since 2012. The applicant was a good decorated Soldier, an Infantryman, who was willing to serve the country at the ?drop of a hat.” After serving in combat towards the end of the applicant’s enlistment, the applicant started having issues with focusing and started drinking more like many other fellow Soldiers. In 2005, PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and other symptoms became prevalent more and more. The applicant did not realize exactly what was happening, until the issues were determined to be service-connected. The applicant desires for an upgrade to take advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 July 2022, and by 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 16 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 April 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully used cocaine; the applicant was AWOL; the applicant was disrespectful to a commissioned officer; and the applicant overindulged in alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 April 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 November 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 93 just use the age, delete “years” c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 August 2003 – 10 April 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 17 November 2004, and From “Confinement” to “PDY,” effective 16 December 2004. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 15 December 2005 (sic), shows the applicant being counseled upon returning from AWOL after being reported AWOL on 16 November 2005 (sic). FG Article 15, dated 16 December 2004, for the applicant being absent from the applicant’s unit without authority on 16 November 2004 until 15 December 2004. The punishment consisted of a reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $596 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 14 February 2005. The applicant was charged with four charges. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Charge I, violation of Article 86, failure to report, guilty consistent with the plea; Charge II, violation of Article 112a, wrongful use of cocaine, guilty consistent with the plea; Charge III, violation of Article 134, overindulgence in alcohol, guilty consistent with the plea; and Charge IV, violation of Article 89, disrespect to a commissioned officer. Sentence: Forfeiture of $823 pay per month for one month and to be confined for 30 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 March 2005, reports the applicant was mentally responsible for the behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance to warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action and training deemed appropriate by the Command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 29 days (AWOL, 17 November 2004 – 15 December 2004) / The applicant returned to the unit. (Any further lost time resulting from the applicant’s SCM sentence of military confinement is not annotated on the DD Form 214.) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a Veterans Affairs letter, dated 27 November 2017, which indicated the applicant was under the care of a psychiatrist since 2012 and being treated for PTSD chronic, Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent and ADHD. The applicant also had a history of alcohol use disorder, opiate use disorder, cannabis use disorder, stimulant use disorder, all in current full sustained remission. The applicant had been experiencing severe PTSD symptoms and depression, including nightmares, flashbacks, insomnia, irritability, depression, and anxiety. The applicant had been compliant with psychiatric medications without side effects and completed psychosocial treatments including outpatient and residential programs for PTSD and Substance use disorders. The applicant also provided a VA Form 21, Review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 16 November 2017, which reflected current diagnostic summary of the applicant being diagnosed with PTSD and listed current diagnoses of ADHD, PTSD, MDD, and Opiate use disorder, cocaine use disorder in full sustained remission, and additional listing of diagnoses (which are illegibly noted in writing). The Form listed symptoms applicable to the applicant’s diagnoses for VA rating purposes: Depressed mood, anxiety, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions or recent events), difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adjusting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting, and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with DD Form 214; VA Psychiatrist letter with VA Form 21 (Review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire (6 pages); discharge orders; Preseparation Counseling Checklist; page two of Record of Emergency Data; Service Member’s Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate; and Enlisted Record Brief. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 ?JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 suffering from PTSD and other symptoms, later determined as service- connected by VA, affected the behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided a letter from a VA psychiatrist, who had treated the applicant since 2012. The letter indicated the applicant was being treated for PTSD chronic, Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent and ADHD, and the applicant had been experiencing severe PTSD symptoms and depression. The applicant also had a history of alcohol use disorder, opiate use disorder, cannabis use disorder, stimulant use disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 March 2005, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being a good decorated Soldier, an Infantryman, who was willing to serve the country. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of the applicant’s service prior to the incidents, which led to the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veterans’ 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Combat-related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder. Service connection establishes that the condition existed during military service. The VA has also diagnosed combat-related PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD/Depression and self-medicating with substances, there was likely an association between applicant’s PTSD and the wrongful use of cocaine and overindulgence of alcohol. The nexus between PTSD, avoidance, and difficulty with authority, mitigate the AWOL and the disrespect. However, applicant already has an Honorable discharge. It is recommended that applicant’s RE Code remain a 3 due to applicant’s service connection for a BH condition. (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 and MDD outweighed the discharge as the applicant’s Honorable discharge is proper and equitable. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and other symptoms, later determined as service-connected by VA, affected the behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant holds an HD with Minor Infractions, further relief is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends of being a good decorated Soldier, an Infantryman, who was willing to serve the country. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. (3) 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. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as 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. Applicant’s RE Code will remain a 3 due to applicant’s service connection for a BH condition. 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 AR20210002692 1