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 Request and Issues. The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a change to the applicant’s reenlistment (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant is unable to use the educational benefits because of the character of discharge. The Montgomery G.I. Bill which the applicant earned and paid for, is the only realistic way for the applicant to return to the bay area with hopes of becoming a productive citizen of society and succeed in the applicant’s college goals. The applicant intends to go to school as a mechanical engineer. Upon graduation, the applicant wants to return to the military as an officer and lead Soldiers and be the difference in the country which the applicant was once fortunate enough to be surrounded by in the applicant’s prior service. b. Board Type and Decision. In a records review conducted on 7 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, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 15 October 2014, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; On or about 17 September 2014, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation by not shaving facial hair while in uniform; On or about 20 July 2014, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; On or about 19 July 2014, the applicant failed to report the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; On or about 13 July 2014, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; On or about 23 April 2014, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. On or about 10 March 2014, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; On or about 12 December 2013, the applicant was disrespectful in language to a superior commissioned officer; On or about 10 December 2013, the applicant backed a vehicle in an unsafe manner and collided with another vehicle; On or about 12 November 2013, the applicant was derelict in the performance of the applicant’s duties by sleeping in ACP #6 while on duty; and, Between on or about 1 November 2013 and on or about 30 November 2013, the applicant violated a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 December 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 December 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 March 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31B10, Military Police / 1 year, 9 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 11 December 2013, for negligently failing to remain awake and alert while on guard duty on or about 12 November 2013. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 7 days; and an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 6 February 2014, for disobeying a lawful command by acquiring a job outside of the military without approval on or about 1 November 2013 and on or about 30 November 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; 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. Applicant Provided or AHMRR listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Condition(s): Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 November 2014, 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; self-authored statement; five third-party letters. 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 14-12b, 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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 requests a change to the applicant’s RE code to rejoin the military as an officer after graduating college. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the Montgomery GI Bill that the applicant paid for and earned. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. These statements all recognize the applicant’s good conduct during and after leaving the Army. 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: PTSD/MST, Depression, and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant Depression, Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, and MST 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 PTSD/MST and Depression mitigates the applicant’s offenses for FTRs given the nexus between PTSD/MST and avoidance and Depression and decreased motivation as it is more likely than not that applicant’s PTSD/MST and Depression contributed to applicant’s multiple FTRs. The Board Medical Advisor also found that the applicant’s PTSD/MST mitigates the applicant’s disrespect offense given the nexus between PTSD and difficulty with authority. Finally, the Board Medical Advisor opined that the applicant’s Depression mitigates the applicant’s sleeping on duty offense as the applicant’s Depression more likely than not contributed to applicant’s sleeping on duty. However, the Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s behavior health conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s offense of failing to obey a lawful order by not shaving while in uniform, operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and acquiring a job outside the military without approval are not mitigated by any of applicant’s behavioral health conditions given no natural sequelae and no evidence in the medical record that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions contributed to the applicant’s misconduct. (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, while the applicant’s PTSD and Depression mitigated the applicant’s FTRs, disrespect, and sleeping on duty offenses, the applicant’s PTSD/MST, Depression, and Adjustment Disorder do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of failing to obey a lawful order by not shaving while in uniform, operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and acquiring a job outside the military without approval. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests a change to the applicant’s RE code to rejoin the military as an officer after graduating college. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s RE code is appropriate as the applicant was discharged for serious misconduct, which warrants a RE Code of “3.” The applicant is advised to consult a Recruiters regarding obtaining a wavier for reenlistment. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the Montgomery GI Bill that the applicant paid for and earned. 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 after applying liberal consideration of all the evidence because, while the applicant’s PTSD and Depression mitigated the applicant’s FTRs, disrespect, and sleeping on duty offenses, the applicant’s PTSD/MST, Depression, and Adjustment Disorder do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of failing to obey a lawful order by not shaving while in uniform, operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and acquiring a job outside the military without approval. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention regarding a RE Code change and determined that a change is not warranted as an RE 3 code is appropriate for the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of misconduct in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12b. 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 above-mentioned 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 AR20210002726 1