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 and reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in October 2016, the applicant had a brief verbal argument with the spouse and the applicant immediately left the residence. The applicant states that the applicant stayed the night with another E-5. The next morning, Monday, the applicant states that applicant arrived at work to learn the applicant's spouse contacted 1LT M., company executive officer, regarding the argument. The applicant states that company commander, CPT T.F. punished the applicant by placing the applicant in the barracks, locked down within the brigade footprint, and imposing a no contact order with the applicant's spouse. After several days, the applicant states that applicant learned the local police did not have a report on file of any incident, and there was no protective order requested by the spouse. After two weeks, the applicant states that punishment was lifted. The applicant states that applicant found out the spouse had no intentions of having the applicant punished or divorcing the applicant, as stated by the applicant's command team. In December 2016, the applicant states that applicant's supervisor, SSG D.L., suspected the applicant smelled of alcohol at morning formation. The applicant did consume alcohol the day prior. Applicant states that SSG L. administered a portable breathalyzer test in the company training room in the presence of 1SG C.B. After the applicant completed the blowing portion of the test, applicant states that SSG L. exited the room with the device and the applicant lost sight of SSG L. Applicant states that SSG L. announced the test result was a 0.068 alcohol level and then reentered the room where 1SG B. and the applicant were located. Applicant states that SSG L. zeroed out the portable breathalyzer's reading without showing the applicant or 1SG B. the test results. The applicant states that applicant was escorted by 1SG B. and SSG L. to the Air Force Security building and the applicant was administered an official breathalyzer test, resulting in a 0.048 reading. The applicant states that applicant is convinced the initial reading at the company was tainted evidence due to the obscurity of the results. After this incident, the applicant states that applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 and a punishment of reduction in rank from Sergeant to Specialist; 45 days of extra duty; and suspended pay. The applicant states that applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). After successfully completing ASAP and the punishment, the applicant states that applicant was involuntarily separated without cause. The applicant states that applicant was eligible for a separation board, having served on active duty for over six years. During the separation board, applicant states that CPT F. stated the reason the applicant was recommended for chapter was for "violating a no alcohol consumption order memorandum," which never happened. Applicant states that CPT F. stated the applicant was given the order by memorandum because of the argument the applicant had with the spouse. The applicant states that the separation board requested a copy of the memorandum from CPT F. and 1SG B., but neither were able to produce the documentation. After the five-hour hearing, the applicant states that applicant was involuntary separated with an honorable discharge. The applicant states that applicant received no support from the superiors. The applicant states that applicant is convinced of a total breach of confidence and integrity on the part of the leadership and the process was contaminated with extreme prejudice. The applicant states that Army failed to recognize the high level of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, evident by combat tours and award of the Combat Infantry Badge. For these reasons, the narrative reason and reentry code should be changed. In a records review conducted on 14 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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 15 July 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 January 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 12 December 2016, the applicant was found drunk on duty in violation of a lawful order not to consume alcohol, issued by Captain T. F. on 1 November 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 February 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 7 February 2017, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable. On 17 March 2017, the case was referred to an administrative separation board. On 20 March 2017, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 28 April 2017, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board found the applicant did commit a serious offense by being found drunk on duty and violating a lawful order. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of honorable. On 8 May 2017, the brigade commander recommended separation with an honorable characterization of service. On 15 May 2017, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 May 2017 / Honorable / The separation authority approved the separation under Army Regulation 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 October 2016 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 42 / Some College / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 7 years, 2 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 April 2010 - 12 March 2013 / HD RA, 13 March 2013 - 5 October 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (15 January 2011 - 29 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, NATOMDL, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2016 - 15 December 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Conditions of Liberty for [Applicant], dated 17 October 2016, reflects the applicant was ordered by CPT T. F., not to consume alcohol and was restricted to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson as an administrative action to prevent any instance of further misconduct. Memorandum, subject: No Contact Order, dated 17 October 2016, reflects the applicant was ordered by CPT T. F., not to contact C.F. and if C.F. attempted to contact the applicant, the applicant was to notify CPT T.F., First Sergeant B., or First Lieutenant M. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the order. Memorandum, subject: Conditions of Liberty for [Applicant], dated 1 November 2016, reflects the applicant was ordered not to consume alcohol by CPT T. F., as an administrative action. Memorandum, subject: Rescind No Contact Order, dated 1 November 2016, reflects the No Contact Order, dated 17 October 2016, was rescinded, but may be placed back into effect if any other incident of domestic altercation occurs. Department of Alaska (illegible) Alcohol Test, dated 12 December 2016, reflects the applicant's test results as .048, breath alcohol content. FG Article 15, dated 14 December 2016, for failing to obey a lawful order issued by CPT T. F., not to consume alcohol (1 November 2016); being found drunk while on duty as a training room noncommissioned officer (12 December 2016); and failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (26 September 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,241 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 January 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared to continue the chapter process. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct, to include regarding an altercation between the applicant and the applicant's spouse. The counseling dated 21 October 2016, reflects in the plan of action section, the applicant was not to drink any alcohol until further notice. The assessment of the plan of action section indicates the applicant was administered a breathalyzer at 1000 hours, which resulted in 0.068. The applicant was taken to the military police station and administered a second breathalyzer at 1140 hours, which resulted in a reading of .048. The platoon sergeant recommended Field Grade Article 15. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 16 January 2018, reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Kurta Memorandum; VA Rating Decision. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 "JKN" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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-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 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 a narrative reason and reentry code 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 of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Minor Infractions)," and the separation code is "JKN." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates 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 reentry code for the discharge needs changed. 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 PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and the Army failed to recognize the applicant's high level of PTSD. The applicant provided VA Rating Decision, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 10 January 2017, which reflects the applicant was cleared to continue the chapter process. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends receiving no help or encouragement from the chain of command. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling. 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 applicant contends the command failed to safeguard the field sobriety evidence and the applicant never receiving an order not to consume alcohol. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present the case before an administrative separation board and the board found the applicant did commit a serious offense by being found drunk on duty and violating a lawful order. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: Combat-related PTSD; Anxiety Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder; and, Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant was diagnosed in-service with Anxiety Disorder and is service connected for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military service. There is no evidence that the post-service diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant's PTSD and Anxiety disorder do partially mitigate the use of alcohol to self-medicate, but not the violation of an order to refrain from drinking on duty, and separately not the applicant's misconduct against applicant's spouse. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, that the PTSD and Anxiety Disorder do not outweigh the applicant's partially mitigated basis for separation that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to Minor Infractions, but found that applicant's current narrative/SPD and RE code do not warrant any further relief. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason/SPD code for the discharge need changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that while the applicant's misconduct was partially mitigated, the applicant's misconduct warranted the current narrative/SPD code. 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 other BH diagnoses do 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 Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative is both proper and equitable applies in this case. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge and the Army failed to recognize the applicant's high level of PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the applicant's PTSD and OBH conditions partially mitigate the misconduct, but the current Honorable with Minor Infractions narrative and RE-3 code is both proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends receiving no help or encouragement from the chain of command. The Board considered this contention but determined that the command was responsive to the issues at hand including alternative housing following an instance of domestic violence to prevent reoccurrence, and support for rehabilitative efforts, therefore this contention does not warrant any change to the discharge. (4) The applicant contends the command failed to safeguard the field sobriety evidence and the applicant never receiving an order not to consume alcohol. The Board determined the weight of the evidence supported a conclusion that the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner throughout applicant discharge, and therefore this contention does not warrant any change to the discharge. 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 narrative reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the current narrative reason/SPD are 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 and the applicant's service-connected PTSD requires a medical waiver prior to rejoining the military. 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 AR20210002769 1