1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served in the military from 2000 to 2013. The applicant’s excellent service history was ignored by his Board of Inquiry (BOI). In over 12 years of service, the applicant had never received so much as a negative counseling statement. The applicant enlisted as a 67U, Medium Helicopter Repairer. After graduating from AIT as an Honor Graduate and the Special Operations Aviation “Green Platoon,” the applicant deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The applicant deployed seven more times to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. In 2006, the applicant became a 154C CH-47D pilot and was nominated for Pilot In Command. On 14 September 2012, the applicant positioned a GMC Yukon and Ford Explorer at different locations in the road, intended for the traffic driving toward the housing area to see the yard sale sign on the back of the vehicles. After walking back to the residence, the applicant consumed some beer and a Kahlua hot chocolate mix and went to bed. The applicant woke up the next morning at approximately 0500 to set up for the yard sale. The applicant recently had a second radial head replacement surgery on the right elbow. The applicant took two Ultram and two Percocet for break through pain. Around 0830, the applicant decided to walk and verify the yard sale signs had not blown away. The applicant arrived where the Yukon was parked and entered the vehicle momentarily to warm up. The applicant was very drowsy due to the medication and fell asleep. The applicant was awakened by the Military Police and taken into custody. The keys were not in the ignition and the applicant had no intention of driving. Major General M.G. initiated elimination based on the general’s new policy concerning Soldiers convicted of DUI, issued on 30 August 2012, which announced a Soldier would face “initiation” of separation if the Soldier “drives or physically controls a motor vehicle on post with a blood alcohol content (BAC) for 0.08 or higher,” effective 17 September 2012. The policy was inconsistent with Army Regulation (AR) 600-85, Chapter 10-6 (b). The climate of the command and the Army’s policy of downsizing improperly influenced the decision to initiate separation and the BOI’s decision. The BOI failed to apply the appropriate standards, depriving the applicant of due process. The BOI considered the statements of two senior officers based substantially on the applicant’s medical status, which were impermissible. The evidence did not establish the applicant controlled a vehicle while drunk. The applicant was in no way “operating” the Yukon by any normal definition of the word. The BOI failed to consider PTSD-related conditions, which may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge in accordance with the Hagel Memo. The BOI’s Finding was unsupported and unwarranted. The applicant’s discharge could harm the applicant’s opportunities with prospective employers. The applicant requests to change the narrative reason, separation authority, and separation code to Secretarial Authority, Medical Disability, or generic term with no negative connotations. 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 9 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The Notification letter is dated 1 November 2012, but the Acknowledgment is undated. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(5) and 4-2b(8) for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, acts of personal misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reason: On 15 September 2012, the applicant physically controlled a vehicle, while drunk and parked the vehicle in the eastbound lane of Gaffney Road facing oncoming traffic. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 8 March 2013, the GOSCA directed a BOI be convened. On 22 April 2013, the BOI recommended the applicant, be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army based on misconduct, with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 20 June 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 12 September 2013, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b(5) and (8). The board recommended separation with an honorable characterization of service. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 September 2013 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 3 May 2006 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 26 / 2 Years College c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: W-2 / 154C0, Chinook-47D Pilot / 13 years, 1 month, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 September 2000 – 4 August 2005 / HD RA, 5 August 2005 – 2 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Honduras, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (January 2003 – 13 April 2003; May 2003 –15 July 2003; April 2004 – 5 July 2004; September 2004 – 4 January 2005; March 2005 – 20 May 2005; July 2005 – 31 October 2005); Iraq (November 2005 – 5 January 2006); Uzbekistan (30 November 2001 – 16 March 2002) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, AM, ARCOM-2, AAM-4, JMUA, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2007 – 27 March 2012 / Best Qualified 27 March 2012 – 26 March 2013 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 15 September 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle Aircraft, or Vessel under Article 111, UCMJ (on post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated1 November 2012, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol. A Fort Wainwright Police Officer was dispatched in response to a report of an individual passed out in the vehicle on the shoulder of the road on 15 September 2012. The applicant failed a series of standardized Field Sobriety Tests and was unable to provide and an adequate breath sample resulting in being cited with refusal to submit to chemical testing. The applicant provided a rebuttal statement with supporting documentation. FG Article 15, dated 13 January 2014, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a GMC Yukon Sport Utility Vehicle, while drunk (15 September 2012). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,109 pay per month for two months. Report of Medical Examination, undated, the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying defects: Chronic elbow pain s/p (status post) radial head surgery. The medical physician qualified the applicant for service. The applicant provided five Georgia Hand, Shoulder and Elbow, P.C., letters dated 25 and 29 June 2012; and 3, 6, and 18 July 2012, which reflects the applicant sustained an injury and had reconstruction surgery of the elbow and a radial head was replaced on 31 October 2011. The applicant reported pain in the lateral elbow as well as the medial elbow. The physician recommended replacing the prothesis and replacing it with a smaller prothesis. On 26 June 2012, the applicant had surgery to replace the prothesis. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command Message, dated 25 September 2013, indicated the applicant would be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation with an honorable characterization of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Four DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Legal Brief with enclosures 1 through 9; Power of Attorney; Hagel Memo; Officer Record Brief; Enlisted Record Brief; enlistment documents; two character references; elimination board documents; medical documents; Georgia Hand, Shoulder and Elbow, P. C. letter. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (4) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (5) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “JNC.” 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 further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, is “JNC.” The applicant contends PTSD related symptoms and pain because of an injury affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports the applicant had two surgeries on the right elbow and was prescribed pain medication for the injury. The record shows the applicant underwent a medical and the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying defects: Chronic elbow pain s/p (status post) radial head surgery. The medical physician qualified the applicant for service. The medical examination was considered by the separation authority. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant presented medical documents which reflects the applicant sustained an injury and had reconstruction surgery of the elbow and a radial head on 31 October 2011 and 26 June 2012. The applicant contends the commanding general’s policy regarding DUI was inconsistent with AR 500-85; the command climate and the Army’s policy of downsizing influenced the decision to initiate separation and the BOI’s decision; and the BOI failed to apply the appropriate standards, depriving the applicant of due process. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including nine combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. The applicant requests a discharge for medical disability. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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. 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 and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA with combat-related PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and self-medicating with substances, there was likely some association between the applicant’s PTSD and the substance abuse that led to applicant’s DUI. However, applicant already has an Honorable discharge. There are no additional BH conditions or experiences in the medical record that support a narrative reason change. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s combat-related PTSD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – physically controlling a vehicle, while drunk and parked the vehicle in the eastbound lane of Gaffney Road facing oncoming traffic. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contetion and determined the narrative reason for the discharge is proper and equitable based on the serverity of the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. It should be noted that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. (3) The applicant contends PTSD related symptoms and pain because of an injury affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable Discharge, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends the commanding general’s policy regarding DUI was inconsistent with AR 500-85; the command climate and the Army’s policy of downsizing influenced the decision to initiate separation and the BOI’s decision; and the BOI failed to apply the appropriate standards, depriving the applicant of due process. The Board considered this contention, however there is insufficient evidence in the file to support this contention. The Board determined the applicant’s narrative reason is appropriate and the discharge is proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends good service, including eight combat tours. The Board determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable Discharge, further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant requests discharge for a medical disability. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (7) 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. 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 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. The partial medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD and does not excuse or fully mitigate the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Unacceptable conduct narrative is both proper and equitable in this case. (3) The RE code will not change, as there were no RE-codes listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being an Officer, no upgrade actions are required for this item. 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 AR20210002766 1