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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because the command informed the applicant the discharge would be automatically upgraded in six or eight months. The applicant was not informed of the hassle involved in upgrading the discharge to honorable. The applicant desires the opportunity to be heard. The applicant believes the command wrongfully punished the applicant and lied to the applicant upon being discharged. The applicant’s life had been greatly impacted. The applicant only wanted to return home to take care of the applicant’s grandmother who was severely ill. The applicant has a family and the only way to take care of the family is to return to school. The applicant apologizes for the mischievous behavior, which happened in the applicant’s youth. The applicant desires the opportunity for a better life for the applicant and the family and does not know how this could be achieved without an upgrade to honorable. The applicant forwarded to concerning PTSD, TBI, MST, Stress, and other behavioral health issues while applying for additional assistance from the government for time served. In a records review conducted on 23 June 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: 15 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant on 11 October 2010, stole a television set, willfully impersonated a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and drove without a USAEUR driver’s license. The applicant was convicted by summary court-martial, dated 17 December 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to Private E-1 and forfeiture of two-thirds pay. The applicant on 28 February 2011, failed to report to 1700 accountability formation. The applicant between 22 and 26 March 2011, violated the medical quarters restriction order. The applicant on 28 March 2011, failed to report to 0630 accountability formation. The applicant on 11 April 2011, failed to report to the applicant’s Behavioral Health appointment. The applicant on 12 April 2011, disobeyed a direct order from an NCO and displayed disrespect in deportment towards an NCO. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 June 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 June 2009 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / NIF / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, reflects on 17 December 2010, the applicant was found guilty of the following charges: One specification of wrongful Appropriation. One specification of impersonating an NCO. One specification of failure to obey order or regulation. The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to Private E-2 and forfeiture of two-thirds pay. On 21 January 2011, the sentence was approved and ordered executed. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 25 March 2011; and, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective date 26 March 2011. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 31 March 2011, per Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16 for pending separation under Chapter 14-12. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 April 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 21 April 2011, for being disrespectful in deportment toward Staff Sergeant (SSG) J.S., a superior NCO, by rolling the eyes, refusing to stand at the position of parade rest, and flaring the arms (12 April 2011) and on divers occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (between 29 February and 28 March, 11 April, and 12 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733, $233 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. The applicant appealed the Article 15 and the appeal was denied. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 day: (AWOL, 25 March 2011 – 25 March 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Department in Support in Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), dated 14 March 2015, reflects the applicant indicated the applicant was in training and the applicant witnessed a battle buddy die and another friend fell 15 feet from a tower and was injured severely. Soldiers died overseas who were close to the applicant. The applicant was placed on Rear-Detachment due to a medical condition and the applicant wondered what life would have been if the applicant had deployed. The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, dated 14 March 2015, reflects the applicant claimed, among other conditions: PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Form 21-0781; VA Form 21-526EZ; ARBA letter; self-authored statement; ECPI University letter; Types of Discharges flyer; Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief; Personal Monthly Financial Statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends pursuing education. 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), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-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 an honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends experiencing in-service PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis or other mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant provided documents which reflect the applicant submitted a claim to VA for PTSD, but the documentation did not reflect the applicant was diagnosed with any mental health condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 April 2011, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends youth affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant believes the command wrongfully punished the applicant and lied to the applicant upon being discharged. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant’s issue about an upgrade based on the passage of time was carefully considered. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends pursuing education for a better life and to support the family. 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 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 DoD and VA medical records and found that the applicant was diagnosed by the VA post-service with Depressive Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s asserted PTSD and Depressive Disorder, for purposes of liberal consideration, existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical opined that applicant’s asserted PTSD and Depressive Disorder does not mitigate the applicant’s offenses - wrongfully appropriation, impersonated a noncommissioned officer (NCO), driving without a USAEUR driver’s license, FTRs, violated the medical quarters restriction order, disobeyed a direct order from an NCO, and disrespect towards an NCO as there is no evidence reflected in the applicant’s official medical records and the applicant did not provide any medical records to support that the applicant’s PTSD diagnosis during service or post-service. Further, the applicant’s VA diagnosed Depressive Disorder was diagnosed post service and is not service connected. Therefore, the applicant’s asserted PTSD and Depressive Disorder do not mitigate the applicant’s pattern of misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that applicant’s asserted PTSD and Depressive Disorder do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses - wrongfully appropriation, impersonated a noncommissioned officer (NCO), driving without a USAEUR driver’s license, FTRs, violated the medical quarters restriction order, disobeyed a direct order from an NCO, and disrespect towards an NCO. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends experiencing in-service PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that there is no evidence of a PTSD diagnoses in the applicant’s official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the applicant’s assertion alone did not outweigh the applicant’s pattern of misconduct due to the severity of the offenses - wrongfully appropriation, impersonated a noncommissioned officer (NCO), driving without a USAEUR driver’s license, FTRs, violated the medical quarters restriction order, disobeyed a direct order from an NCO, and disrespect towards an NCO. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior which ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (3) The applicant contends youth affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicants discharge is proper and equitable and this contention alone does not warrant an upgrade. (4) The applicant believes the command wrongfully punished the applicant and lied to the applicant upon being discharged. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is no evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence, that applicant’s asserted PTSD and Depressive Disorder do not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses - wrongfully appropriation, impersonated a noncommissioned officer (NCO), driving without a USAEUR driver’s license, FTRs, violated the medical quarters restriction order, disobeyed a direct order from an NCO, and disrespect towards an NCO. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention, including the applicant’s family issues, asserted behavioral health conditions, and the applicant’s contention that the applicant was wrongfully punished and found that a discharge upgrade is not warranted due to the applicant’s nature and frequency of the applicant’s misconduct. 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 pattern of 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 AR20210002807 1