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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and was granted 100 percent service-connected disability since February 2014. The applicant failed the urinalysis in 2015 because the applicant was self-medicating due to PTSD. In February or March 2017, the applicant went to the SRP in Fort Buchanan, PR, and began the medical board process. The applicant was discharged from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service on 20 September 2017. The applicant questions why the command did not consider the applicant's 100 percent disability rating for PTSD when the applicant failed the urinalysis; why the applicant was not given the opportunity for rehabilitation; and why the applicant was not discharged for the medical condition. 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 August 2014 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Some College / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Specialist / 9 years, 6 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 3 March 2008 - 15 August 2014 / HD IADT, 3 June 2008 - 17 December 2008 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 13 January 2011 - 19 February 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (9 March 2011 - 9 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFRMM, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant's DD Form 214, separation date, 19 February 2012, reflects the applicant completed the period for which ordered to active duty for purpose of post service benefits and entitlements and in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The DD Form 214 reflects the applicant had a Reserve Obligation Date of: 2 March 2016 and was transferred to upon completion of required active service to: 475th Engineer Company, Ponce, PR 00732. Orders 17-256-00035, dated 13 September 2017. The orders indicate the applicant was reduced from Specialist (E-4) to E-1, effective 13 September 2017; and discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Decision Review Officer Decision, dated 12 August 2015, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, effective 9 February 2014. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command letter, subject: Army CRSC Ineligible Letter, Claim #: 347236, dated 10 August 2017, reflects the applicant's claim for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) did not meet eligibility requirement. The supporting documentation reflects the applicant listed low back pain and PTSD, related to combat as the claimed disabilities. The injuries were because of hazardous service in Afghanistan and due to a mortar attack less than 10 meters. The Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) reflects the information was inputted on 16 August 2017 (36 days prior to the applicant's discharge). The applicant provided Progress Notes, dated 8 March 2018, which reflect the applicant had been receiving mental health treatment since 2012 and diagnosed with PTSD in February 2014. During the first few years of treatment the applicant's symptoms were severe and the applicant used alcohol and illegal substances. The applicant had multiple interpersonal problems which led to a divorce in 2015. The applicant has been clean and sober since 2016. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Progress Notes; VA Decision Review Officer Decision; Hagel Memo. 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 17-256-00035, dated 13 September 2017. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior and led to the discharge. The AMHRR contains documentation which reflect the applicant was diagnosed by the VA with PTSD, with substance use disorder, and rated 100 percent service-connected disability, effective 9 February 2014. The information was entered in iPERMS 36 days prior to the applicant's discharge. The applicant provided medical documents, which reflect the applicant had been treated for mental health issues since 2012 and diagnosed with PTSD in 2014. The record is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends not being provided the opportunity for rehabilitation. Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 2-4, entitled counseling and rehabilitation, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements when it is determined reassignment is not feasible due to commuting distance; or Soldier would create serious disciplinary problems, hazard to the military mission, or affect unit readiness; or rehabilitation would not produce the quality Soldier. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends the command did not consider the 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The AMHRR is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge. The applicant contends a medical board was in process at the time of separation and the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The AMHRR is void of any evidence the applicant was pending an MEB at the time of separation. Army Regulation 135-178, Paragraph 1-9, in effect at the time, provides when a Soldier is being processed for separation for misconduct, the GCMCA may direct, in writing, the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system when action under the UCMJ (court-martial proceedings) had not been initiated and it has been determined the Soldiers medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing case of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation or, other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. If the GCMCA decides to process the Soldier through the physical disability system, the unit commander will suspend the administrative separation action pending the PEB. If the Soldier is found physically fit, the administrative separation action will be resumed. If the Soldier is found physically unfit, the administrative separation action will be abated. 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? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD; Adjustment Disorder. However, even though the applicant contends applicant's discharge is based on a single UA positive test, the Board did not accept that contended basis for applicant's separation resulting in applicant's Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge characterization. Since the Board did not accept applicant's contended basis for separation, nor find sufficient evidence to determine any other basis for separation, the Board's Medical Advisor cannot make a medical mitigation determination without knowing or having the Board accept the applicant's basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior and led to the discharge and the command did not consider the 100 percent service-connected disability. While the Board liberally considered applicant's PTSD and OBH conditions, the Board without knowing the basis for separation, could not determine whether or not applicant's PTSD or OBH conditions outweighed or even mitigated the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends not being provided the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention, but determined that medical records show the applicant was referred to the RESPECT-Mil program, but did not follow up with referral for services. The Board concluded that this contention did not warrant any change to the discharge. (3) The applicant contends a medical board was in process at the time of separation and the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that administrative discharges are halted when acts of misconduct occur which may result in involuntary discharge. The Board concluded that this contention did 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 applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's PTSD and BH conditions did not outweigh or mitigate the basis for separation, because the Board could not determine the basis for separation, and the Board could not find sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of Government regularity, and therefore concluded the current discharge characterization is both proper and equitable. The discharge is presumed consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) As there were no Reasons/SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. 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 AR20210002815 1