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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after the discharge, the applicant was fortunate to be employed as a contractor in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the career field in which the applicant was trained in the Army, military occupational specialty (MOS) 35F, Intelligence Analyst. The applicant effectively used the skills to support ground forces for over two years. The applicant’s analytical skills provided support in eliminating the threats of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and saving troops’ lives. The occupation helped the applicant’s aspirations in the intelligence field. Once the applicant’s tenure as a contractor ended, the applicant found the luck had run out in terms of working in the intelligence field. Upon returning to the applicant’s hometown, the applicant was unemployed for eight months. The applicant began working in community service as a grant writer for a local non-profit organization, to aid low-income homeless people suffering from mental illness, many of whom were veterans. Although not in the intelligence field, it gave the applicant a sense of pride and accomplishment and made the applicant realize the applicant had unresolved issues of PTSD stemming from active duty deployment. This led to the applicant seeking aid from the local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic. Since April 2014, the applicant regularly visited the VA clinic and Veterans Center for, what the applicant assumed were anger issues and issues transitioning to civilian life. During the sessions, the applicant became aware the applicant was displaying symptoms of PTSD during the deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Before the deployment, the applicant was the runner-up in the Soldier of the Month Board in the Military Intelligence (MI) Company. The applicant was transferred to a line unit’s S-2 shop for the deployment. The applicant was 19-years-old in a war zone, with inadequate personal skills to overcome the stressors of war nor, what the applicant believed at the time, the proper leadership to help the applicant cope with the stressors. This caused angry, aggressive, and rebellious behavior, which led to two Company Grade Article 15s in a 15-month deployment. The inability to receive proper aid for PTSD caused the applicant’s misconduct. Upon returning to garrison, the rebellious behavior continued, and the applicant’s five-year service commitment was cut short. The applicant was separated from the Army, leading to years of regret for not being able to address the root of the problem sooner, and missing the chance to complete the term of service with honor and dignity. The applicant is passionate about being an Intelligence Analyst. The applicant has a genuine interest in helping others and saving lives. A general discharge hinders the applicant from being an asset to the country. The applicant learned better ways to cope with PTSD and became a better citizen. The current discharge is unjust and not a true reflection of the applicant’s active duty service, nor is it a reflection of the applicant’s character. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable to be eligible to obtain a college degree with the GI Bill and use Veteran’s Preference when applying to federal jobs in the intelligence field. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 August 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 June 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disobeyed the orders of a noncommissioned officer (NCO). The applicant failed to be at the appointed place of duty numerous times. The applicant disrespected NCOs on more than one occasion in both language and deportment. The applicant was derelict in the performance of duties. The applicant was arrested in Austin, Texas for public intoxication. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 July 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 July 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 July 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35F10, Intelligence Analyst / 3 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (5 November 2007 – 18 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 4 August 2008, for, near Forward Operating Base (FOB), Marez, Iraq: The applicant, on six occasions, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (26 March, 10 April, 11 April, 31 May, 18 June, and 7 August 2008). The applicant was disrespectful in deportment toward Sergeant (SGT) B., an NCO by ripping the applicant’s rank off the applicant’s chest, throwing it on the ground, and storming out of the office (31 May 2008). The applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful order from SGT B., an NCO, not to leave work until all the tasks were complete and SGT B reviewed them (5 May 2008). The applicant was disrespectful in deportment toward SGT B., an NCO, by not addressing SGT B. as Sergeant and slamming the door in SGT B.’s face while SGT B. was talking to the applicant (5 May 2008). The applicant was derelict in the performance of the duties by negligently failing to have the applicant’s M4 weapon clean for inspection (18 April 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $352 pay; and extra duty for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 12 August 2008, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 6 August 2008, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place duty, to wit: 0700 at the S-2 Shop (8 August 2008). CG Article 15, dated 29 October 2008, for, near FOB, Marez, Iraq, willfully disobeying a lawful order from Staff Sergeant M. N., an NCO, to not drive a non-tactical vehicle (NTV) in the squadron area unless the applicant had an NTV license (11 October 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended); forfeiture of $352 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant asserts PTSD in the applicant’s statement. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; character reference. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant was employed as a contractor in support of OEF in the intelligence career field and worked with a non-profit organization in community service. The applicant learned better ways to cope with PTSD and became a better citizen. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 a 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 PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. 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 is void of a mental status evaluation. The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 2 February 2018, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. 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 applicant received no assistance from the command with the applicant’s issues. 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. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant and recognizes the applicant’s good military 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. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends being employed as a contractor in support of OEF and working with a non-profit organization in community service. The applicant learned better ways to cope with PTSD and became a better citizen. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Applicant asserted PTSD and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant asserts PTSD and Adjustment Disorder 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, while PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s offenses of disobeying the orders of an NCO, FTRs, disrespect towards NCOs on more than one occasion in both language and deportment, derelict in the performance of duties, and civilian arrest for public intoxication given the nexus between PTSD, disrespect, avoidance, and self-medicating with substances. However, the Board Medical Advisor could not determine whether the applicant’s asserted PTSD actually mitigates these offenses because there is no evidence in the applicant’s military medical or VA records that reflects a PTSD diagnosis or service connection. Additionally, the applicant was discharged over 10 years ago with treatment privileges at the VA and did not provide medical documentation and the VA provider note don not support that the applicant’s asserted PTSD was diagnosed or service connected. Further, the Board Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder does not mitigate the applicant’s offenses as there is no evidence to support a nexus between the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and the applicant’s offenses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s asserted PTSD and Adjustment Disorder do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses– disobeying the orders of an NCO, FTRs, disrespect towards NCOs on more than one occasion in both language and deportment, derelict in the performance of duties, and civilian arrest for public intoxication. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of PTSD, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of PTSD diagnosis in official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional 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. (2) 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 the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the applicant received no assistance from the command with the applicant’s issues. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and found the applicant was counseled for FTRs on diverse occasions and concerns about applicant’s actions. The Board voted and determined the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By disobeying the orders of an NCO, FTRs, disrespect towards NCOs on more than one occasion in both language and deportment, derelict in the performance of duties, and being arrested in Austin for public intoxication, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant contends being employed as a contractor in support of OEF and working with a non-profit organization in community service. The applicant learned better ways to cope with PTSD and became a better citizen. The Board determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 asserted PTSD and Adjustment Disorder do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses– disobeying the orders of an NCO, FTRs, disrespect towards NCOs on more than one occasion in both language and deportment, derelict in the performance of duties, and civilian arrest for public intoxication. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention regarding the applicant’s youth and inadequate leadership to assist the applicant with stressor but found that the totality of the applicant’s record did not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002699 1