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 based on the previous 53 months of honorable service with no adverse actions before January 2014. The applicant upheld the standards of the Army and as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) from September 2009 to January 2014, the time the applicant served time in an El Paso County Jail for 10 days due to a DUI the applicant received on 21 February 2013. The applicant's chain of command was not aware of the offense due to the fact the applicant was advised by a lawyer, it would be double jeopardy if the applicant was punished by civil and military law. In January 2014, the applicant's squad leader was informed the applicant would be serving 10 days in county jail for the DUI conviction. The offense led to the general discharge two months later. Although the applicant accepts full responsibility for the actions, it is proper to say this was the cause of a bigger problem. The applicant was not diagnosed with PTSD until 2017, by the VA., but as the documents enclosed show, the applicant was being treated for anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD-like symptoms, and alcohol abuse since the deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant had been to the emergency room for these symptoms on multiple occasions. The applicant could not be in rooms full of people, and noises pretty much stole the applicant's family life away from the applicant. Throughout all this time, the applicant still served honorably while mental and medical help was minimized due to government cutbacks. The applicant requested help many times and was given excuses of why they could not help. The applicant felt alone and afraid. When the Soldiers returned from deployment in June 2012, the camaraderie was heightened due to the Soldiers' time together. The Soldiers always had each other's backs. Less than four months later, the applicant PCS'd to Fort Carson, and it all went into a downward spiral. There was no camaraderie, no help, and there were only 10 people in the unit, who were just as lost as the applicant. On 21 February 2013, the applicant decided to make the wrong decision. The applicant requests consideration of the evidence the applicant provides. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement submitted with the application. In a records review conducted on 29 June 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 March 2014 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: 8 September 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 15H20, Aircraft Pneudraulics Repairer / 4 years, 6 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (13 June 2011 - 5 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2012 - 30 November 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 25 March 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Army Body Composition Program (KA), effective 22 October 2013; Relief for Cause NCOER (DA), effective 9 January 2014; Involuntary Separation or Discharge, field initiated (BA), effective 9 January 2014, and Adverse Action (AA), effective 9 January 2014. Orders 076-0006, dated 17 March 2014, indicate the applicant was ordered to report to the transition point on 24 March 2014. The date of discharge unless / changed or rescinded: 24 March 2014. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / The applicant contends confinement by civil authorities for 10 days. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 5 February 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse; Rule out Alcohol Dependence; Other Psychosocial/Environmental Problems; and Transient Symptoms. The applicant was command-referred to ASAP due to receiving a DUI in February 2013. The applicant reported the command was unaware of the DUI until the applicant was forced to tell the command about it when the applicant had to report to jail for a week as part of the sentence. Two Warrior Counseling and Consulting letters, dated 2 September 2016 and 10 February 2017, reflect a psychotherapist had been treating the applicant since August 2016. The applicant presented symptoms consistent with a major depressive episode, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The applicant was hospitalized for major depression and suicidal ideations prior to beginning outpatient psychotherapy. The psychotherapist conducted 11 outpatient treatment sessions with the applicant. The psychotherapist supported the applicants' request for a service animal to help the applicant with emotional self-regulation. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 17 May 2017, reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD (previously rated as Other Specified Anxiety Disorder with Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission)). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Enlisted Record Brief; military medical records; three third-party support statements; two Warrior Counseling and Consulting letters; VA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends attaining a CDL; being enrolled in school; pursuing entrepreneurship; and being a great spouse, parent, and citizen. The applicant has been sober for a couple of years. 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 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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. g. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with in-service Alcohol Abuse; Rule out Alcohol Dependence; Other Psychosocial/Environmental Problems; and Transient Symptoms. The applicant was treated for PTSD after the applicant was discharged and the VA rated the applicant 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD (previously rated as Other Specified Anxiety Disorder with Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission)). The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends being rushed through the ASAP to discharge the applicant as soon as possible. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. The third-party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognizes the applicant's good military service. The applicant contends being sober for a couple years; attaining a CDL; being enrolled in school; pursuing entrepreneurship; and being a great spouse, parent, and citizen. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Anxiety Disorder and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety DO in the military. The VA has service connected their diagnosis of PTSD (50% service connected) (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined there is a nexus between PTSD and alcohol use to self-medicate symptoms. Thus, the applicant's accepted basis for separation, DUI, is mitigated by the applicant's PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's Anxiety Disorder and PTSD outweighed the accepted basis for separation, DUI. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's accepted basis for separation, DUI. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's accepted basis for separation, DUI. (3) The applicant contends being rushed through the ASAP to discharge the applicant as soon as possible. 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 applicant's discharge is inequitable and an upgrade to the characterization and narrative reason is warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (5) The applicant contends being sober for a couple years; attaining a CDL; being enrolled in school; pursuing entrepreneurship; and being a great spouse, parent, and citizen. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post- service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's discharge is inequitable and an upgrade to the characterization and narrative reason is warranted. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of DUI - which the Board found in medical records and used as the accepted basis for separation since the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge are not known due to the absence of the separation packet. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002817 1