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: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was discharged for hitting the First Sergeant (1SG) after the 1SG was spitting in the applicant’s face. The 1SG was screaming at the applicant for not passing the Army Physical Fitness Test due to a back condition the applicant is currently service-connected disable for and had a profile for this condition at the time. This was the usual routine for the 1SG, who had never been in combat. The 1SG attacked the applicant and the applicant was in a great deal of pain. The 1SG believed the applicant did not deserve respect. The applicant was pending a medical discharge, but due to this one incident, the 1SG recommended the applicant receive a dishonorable discharge. The applicant did not provoke the 1SG and believes the discharge is a severe injustice. The applicant is 90 percent service-connected disabled for the back condition and PTSD and receives disability benefits from Social Security. The applicant recently filed a claim through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for individual unemployability because the applicant is unable to work. The applicant is trying to raise two children as a single parent and help the applicant’s mother with daily needs. The applicant volunteers in the community, organizing the annual parade, and volunteers in the community. The applicant’s days of fighting are done, and the applicant focuses on family issues and helping others. The applicant is able to complete handyman work and take care of the animals on the applicant’s mini farm. 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 20 January 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 December 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 7 December 2004, the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and a Personality Disorder. The applicant was Absent Without Leave from the Army on 8 to 28 September [2004]. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 December 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 April 2002 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 63B10, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 8 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 February 2003 – 8 July 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 7 October 2004, for being AWOL (between 8 and 28 September 2004). The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) is void of the punishment(s) imposed. Report of Medical Examination, dated 9 November 2004, the examining medical physician indicated the applicant was not qualified for service / Chapter 14-12c. The applicant noted in the physical profile section P-T2, L-T3, S-T2; and noted in the significant or disqualifying defects section: L5-S1 Herniation and Pilonidal Cyst. The physician recommended the applicant consult with Physical Therapy, Neurosurgery, and Pain Management for lower back pain secondary to Disc Herniation and follow-up with primary care provider for evaluation of Pilonidal Cyst. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 16 November 2004, for pending separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 21 days (AWOL, 8 September 2004 – 28 September 2004) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Memorandum, subject: Mental Health Evaluation in the Case of [Applicant], dated 29 October 2004, reflects the commander referred to the Behavioral Health Clinic by the applicant’s immediate commander for evaluation required for Chapter proceedings. The applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by command including separation in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 14. Memorandum, subject: Mental Health Evaluation in the Case of [Applicant], dated 7 December 2004, reflects the applicant initially was seen on 29 October 2004, following discharge from Pineville, VA and for a mental status evaluation per the commander’s request for Chapter 14 proceedings. 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 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood; Alcohol Abuse; Personality Disorder not otherwise specified with dependent features. The applicant met the criteria for administrative separation under AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 for Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Chapter 5-13 for Personality Disorder. The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 9 November 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 70 percent; and five conditions related to a claim for back conditions, 10 percent each condition. The applicant was rated 80 percent combined evaluation for compensation and individual unemployability granted from 13 June 2017. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Social Security Administration letter; VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is raising two children and care for the applicant’s mother; volunteers in the community; and does handyman work on the applicant’s farm due to medical conditions. 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 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (4) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (5) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-14 (previously Chapter 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions, at the time, of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Condition, Not a Disability,” and the separation code is “JFV.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD and a back condition affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents which reflect the applicant was rated service-connected disability for PTSD, 70 percent; and for each back condition 10 percent; a combined total of 80 percent. The AMHRR reflects in the Mental Health Evaluations (MHEs), the applicant underwent two mental status evaluations (MSEs) on 29 October and 7 December 2004, which reflect 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 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood; Alcohol Abuse; Personality Disorder not otherwise specified with dependent features. The provider(s) determined the applicant met the criteria for AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17 for Adjustment Disorder and Chapter 5-13 for Personality Disorder. The MHEs were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends harassment by a member of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 1-33, in effect at the time, provides except in separation actions under chapter 10 and as provided in paragraph 1-33b, chapters 7, 14, or 15, disposition through medical channels takes precedence over administrative separation processing. The AMHRR is void of any evidence the applicant was pending a medical evaluation board. The applicant contends raising two children and caring for the applicant’s mother; volunteering in the community; and working as a handyman on the applicant’s farm. 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: Combat-related PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Dysthymia, and Personality Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Dysthymia, and a Personality Disorder. Applicant is also diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD 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 applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder, Dysthymia, and a Personality Disorder. Applicant is also diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD and a back condition. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant’s AWOL is medically mitigated. However, applicant already has an Honorable characterization of service. In response to applicant’s request for a narrative reason change, the Board’s Medical Advisor opines that applicant’s reason for separation is appropriate. Applicant was diagnosed in service with a Condition, Not a Disability and discharged accordingly. It is noted that applicant is service connected for a back condition as applicant asserts, but this has no bearing on the appropriateness of the discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board applied liberal consideration, which mitigated the misconduct of AWOL, however the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and a Personality Disorder, which render the current narrative reason appropriate. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, ultimately the board determined the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable the narrative reason is appropriate due to the applicant being diagnosed with a Personality Disorder. (2) The applicant contends PTSD and a back condition affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, ultimately the board determined the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable due to the applicant being diagnosed with a Personality Disorder. The applicant’s PTSD and back condition does not mitigate the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Personality Disorder basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, ultimately the board determined the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable due to the applicant being diagnosed in service with a Condition, Not a Disability. (4) The applicant contends harassment by a member of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with harassment issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner that the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. The Board considered this contention and found there is insufficient evidence in the records to support this contention. The Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable. (6) The applicant contends raising two children and caring for the applicant’s mother; volunteering in the community; and working as a handyman on the applicant’s farm. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. 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 the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. Medical Records show the applicant was diagnosed in service with a Condition, Not a Disability and discharged accordingly. (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 AR20210002755 1