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’s time in Iraq was characterized as honorable. Upon returning to Fort Campbell, the applicant struggled to cope with the experiences in combat. The applicant consumed copious amounts of alcohol to cope with symptoms of the injuries or medical conditions rather than the root cause. While in the service, asking for help was frowned upon. Drinking was the go-to medication of choice. The applicant struggled the most while state-side but thrived in Iraq. The drinking culture led the applicant to act in an unprofessional manner on numerous occasions upon returning from Iraq. The applicant believes there is verifiable medical evidence which suggests, or rather explains, the applicant was discharged because of symptoms of undiagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and both conditions arose from the applicant’s service in Iraq as an Infantryman. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed the applicant with the conditions, as well as a third-party medical provider, as indicated in the applicant’s Compensation and Pension portion of the VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). The applicant understands the new guidance mandates liberal consideration in reviewing a discharge petition. The applicant believes PTSD, TBI, and more recently, epilepsy greatly contributed to the applicant’s pattern of misconduct. The fact such a pattern has not carried over to the applicant’s civilian life is a testament to the fact. The culture of drinking made things even worse. The applicant’s life has improved significantly because the applicant has been made aware of the medical conditions and is seeking treatment. The stigma surrounding the applicant’s discharge greatly affects the applicant’s self-esteem. The applicant believes the time in service was characterized by more honorable conditions than the converse. The applicant has stopped drinking for almost a year. Since leaving the Army, the applicant has received treatment for the PTSD and recently finished a Stress Management class through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The applicant is six credits away from finishing an Associate’s Degree and has stayed out of trouble with the law. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 September 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: 13 June 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 May 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty on numerous occasions. The applicant failed to register a personally owned weapon, which the applicant carried in the applicant’s personally owned vehicle the applicant operated without a valid driver’s license while intoxicated. The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for these incidents. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 24 May 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 May 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 July 2003 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 11 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (21 September 2005 – 28 August 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, CIB, OSB-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report (Blotter), dated 23 April 2005, reflects the applicant was apprehended for driving while under the Influence (underage). Investigation revealed, during a 100 percent check, the applicant was observed driving the applicant’s vehicle and the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. The applicant failed the field sobriety tests and submitted to an intoximeter with a result of .08 percent blood alcohol content. The report lists the following previous offenses: On 22 July 2004, burglary and wrongful disposition of government property; On 15 October 2004, larceny of private property, conspiracy to commit other crimes against property, unlawful/forced entry (including automobiles), and destruction of private property; and, On 19 October 2004, larceny of private property. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 2 May 2006, reflects the applicant was driving a motor vehicle in the state of Kentucky with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher in violation of Kentucky law. Three Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificates, dated 9 and 20 November 2006 and 18 January 2007, reflect the applicant waived the rights to being questioned regarding suspected illegal drug use; having an unregistered weapon in the applicant’s privately owned vehicle and the barracks; and being absent from duty. Three Sworn Statements from the applicant, dated 9 and 20 November 2006 and 18 January 2007, reflect the applicant admitted to Staff Sergeant (SSG) S. D. the applicant had been taking the drugs ecstasy, cocaine, and loratabs since the applicant returned from Iraq. The applicant admitted to storing an unregistered weapon in the applicant’s vehicle and the barracks room; crashing the applicant’s vehicle while drinking; and failing to report to duty. FG Article 15, dated 20 March 2007, for: The applicant on two occasions, failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (17 January 2007). The applicant violated a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing a personally owned weapon in the barracks room (8 November 2006). The applicant wrongfully failed to register the personally owned weapon on post (8 November 2006). The applicant was derelict in the performance of duties by negligently failing to report to the chain of command as to the applicant’s whereabouts in a reasonable amount of time (17 January 2007). The applicant operated a passenger car while intoxicated (17 January 2007). The applicant wrongfully operated a motor vehicle without the applicant’s driver’s license (17 January 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 March 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs Progress Notes, dated 15 March 2010, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Ethanol (ETOH) and Cannabis Abuse; Antisocial Trait. Department of Veterans Affairs letter to Honorable D. F., dated 8 December 2014, which reflects the applicant was rated service-connected disability for PTSD with secondary depressive disorder and poly substance abuse, 100 percent; Traumatic Brain Injury, 10 percent. My Health eVet, VA Problem List, dated 22 May 2018, lists Intermittent Explosive Disorder; Alcohol Abuse, continuous drinking; Cannabis-Related Disorder, not otherwise specified; Temporal Lobe Epilepsy; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Impulse-Control Disorder, not otherwise specified. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 149; DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; VA Form 21-22; Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA); Post -Deployment health Assessment; VA Medical Record, Progress Notes; My Health eVet Personal Information Report; official academic transcript; VA letter to Honorable D. F.; VA Statement in Support of Claim (third party); two third party character references; training certificate; Enlisted Record Brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends abstaining from drinking for almost a year; receiving treatment for the PTSD and completing a Stress Management class through the VA; pursuing an Associate’s Degree; and staying out of trouble with the law. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends PTSD, TBI, and Epilepsy affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating the applicant was diagnosed by the VA with: Intermittent Explosive Disorder; Alcohol Abuse, continuous drinking; Cannabis- Related Disorder, not otherwise specified; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Traumatic Brain Injury; Epilepsy; Impulse-Control Disorder, not otherwise specified. The applicant was rated service-connected disability for PTSD, 100 percent; Traumatic Brain Injury, 10 percent. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 23 March 2007, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the drinking culture affected the applicant’s behavior and requesting help was frowned upon. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. 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 applicant contends abstaining from drinking for almost a year; receiving treatment for the PTSD and completing a Stress Management class through the VA; pursuing an associate degree; and staying out of trouble with the law. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and good conduct 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD and TBI, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. There is evidence supporting the following diagnoses, symptoms, and experiences existed during the applicant’s service: PTSD, TBI. (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 and TBI mitigated the applicant’s FTRs and DUI offenses based on the nexus between trauma and avoidance with substance use. However, the applicant’s PTSD and TBI do not mitigate the applicant’s offense of failing to register a weapon or driving without a valid license as there is no nexus between the PTSD/TBI and the applicant’s misconduct. Rather, the applicant’s misconduct involved daily conscious decisions to carry a weapon in the applicant’s POV and ignore regular safety briefings. Additionally, the Board Medical Advisor opined that the applicant’s VA service connection for TBI reflects that the applicant experiences mild to no cognitive symptoms which would not impact the applicant’s decisions to not register a weapon, store the weapon in the applicant’s POV, or drive without a valid license. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor’s opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD/TBI did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses– failing to register a personally owned weapon, carry the weapon in the applicant’s POV and drive without a valid license because of the serious and intentional nature required to initiate and maintain those specific actions. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD, TBI, and Epilepsy affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted as the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, and Epilepsy did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses– failing to register a personally owned weapon, carry the weapon in the applicant’s POV and drive without a valid license due to the serious nature of the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the drinking culture affected the applicant’s behavior and requesting help was frowned upon. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with behavioral issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. Furthermore, there is no connection between not registering a weapon and driving with an invalid license and the applicant’s contended conditions or experiences. (3) 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 keeping an unregistered firearm in the applicant’s POV and driving with an invalid license, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends abstaining from drinking for almost a year; receiving treatment for the PTSD and completing a Stress Management class through the VA; pursuing an associate degree; and staying out of trouble with the law. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s asserted post-service accomplishments were insufficient to outweigh the applicant’s unmitigated misconduct. Therefore, no relief is warranted. 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 the applicant’s 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD/TBI did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses– failing to register a personally owned weapon, carry the weapon in the applicant’s POV and drive without a valid license because of the serious and intentional nature required to initiate and maintain those specific actions. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions regarding the drinking culture, the applicant’s good service, 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 AR20210002748 1