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 and a narrative reason change. a. Applicant Request and Issues. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served the country very honorably, and during combat. The applicant had great Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) ratings. The applicant requests a narrative reason change because there was no pattern of misconduct. The applicant was a great follower, leader, and motivator to the seniors, peers, and Soldiers. The applicant suffered from undiagnosed PTSD at the time, which would have played a role. The incident which took place in Afghanistan which led to the applicant receiving the first and only Article 15 was an altercation between the applicant and the applicant’s spouse. The spouse provided an exaggerated report in retaliation towards the applicant and eventually informed the command the spouse wanted to recant the statement, but the commander insisted on kicking both the applicant and the spouse out of the military. There were over seven enlisted and officers to speak on the applicant’s behalf. The commander only allowed one Soldier to speak and the commander was upset after realizing how many superiors wanted to speak on the applicant’s behalf, to include a Chief Warrant Officer Five and a Command Sergeant Major. The applicant has always taken responsibility for the actions, but the applicant really believes the applicant was wronged for this. The applicant received an Army Good Conduct Medal and was months from receiving another one before the commander pushed for the applicant’s release. The applicant’s command informed the applicant on numerous occasions the applicant’s spouse was going to hinder and ruin the applicant’s career if the applicant stayed with the spouse. At the time, the spouse was the only help the applicant had and knew what the applicant was suffering with emotionally. The applicant believed the spouse could be depended on for anything. The applicant was blinded. Patterns of misconduct should be supported with an actual pattern, which is not the case. The applicant is currently an employee for the Department of the Navy where the applicant continues to prove worthy and serve the great nation. b. Board Type and Decision. In a records review conducted on 12 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 October 2012 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: 12 July 2011 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A20, Automated Logistical Specialist / 7 years, 9 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 22 December 2004 – 28 August 2006 / HD IADT, 23 August 2005 – 24 January 2006 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 29 August 2006 – 20 November 2008 / HD RA, 21 November 2008 – 11 July 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (18 January 2012 – 7 June 2012); Iraq (5 September 2009 – 25 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-5, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, OSR-2, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 2 October 2009 – 1 October 2010 / Fully Capable 2 October 2010 – 1 October 2011 / Fully Capable 2 October 2011 – 12 March 2012 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 6 February2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Simple Assault – Consummated by a Battery under Article 128, UCMJ (on post). Investigation revealed M. T. and S. T. were involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical when M. T. struck S. T. with the butt of the rifle causing S. T.’s chest to bruise and swell. S. T. was transported to mustang Ramp Aid Station and treated for the injuries and released. Military Protective Order, dated 5 February 2012, reflects the applicant was issued an order not to contact SGT S. T. until 1 December 2012. Servicemembers had a history of domestic disputes and have attended classes to help the marriage to no avail. The applicant was ordered not to carry a weapon until further notice. FG Article 15, dated 12 March 2012, for at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, unlawfully strike Sergeant (SGT) S. T. in the chest with the butt of the rifle and unlawfully grab SGT S. T. and knocking a box of papers out of SGT S. T.’s hand (5 February 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,133 pay; and extra duty 30 days. The applicant appealed and the appeal was denied. Orders 268-0019, dated 24 September 2012, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 4 October 2012 from the Regular Army. 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 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 6 September 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected disability compensation, effective 1 July 2017. The letter did not reveal the medical conditions in which the applicant received the rating, but did indicate a 70% rating for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two NCOERs; military service awards and training certificates; VA Service-Connected Disability Compensation letter; three third-party character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends, through third-party letter, attaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology; being employed with the Department of the Navy as a civilian Supply Technician; and maintaining the marriage by working on differences. 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) 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. 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 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 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD and family issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided a letter from VA which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected disability, but the letter is void of the medical conditions which were rated by the VA, but did indicate a 70% rating for PTSD. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the discharge is improper because there was no pattern of misconduct and the commander was determined to kick the applicant and spouse out of the service. The AMHRR is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor’s Degree; being employed with the Department of the Navy; and maintaining the marriage by working on the differences. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and/or good conduct after leaving the Army. 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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, and Dysthymic Disorder may mitigate the applicant’s Board accepted basis of separation – Assault (Striking the chest of his wife with a rifle). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor and found the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, and Dysthymic Disorder existed during the applicant’s military service. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder do not mitigate the applicant’s Board accepted basis of separation - Assault as assault is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder . (4) No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted medically unmitigated basis of separation – Assault. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that a change to the narrative reason is not warranted because the narrative reason specified by AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for the applicant’s is a “Pattern of Misconduct.” (2) The applicant contends PTSD and family issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the evidence in the applicant’s DOD and VA health records confirm that applicant’s PTSD and Dysthymic Disorder, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted medically unmitigated basis of separation – Assault. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and determined that the weight of the evidence does not support a discharge upgrade. (3) The applicant contends the discharge is improper because there was no pattern of misconduct, and the commander was determined to kick the applicant and spouse out of the service. The Board considered this contention and determined that that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable because AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b authorizes separation for a pattern of misconduct if the misconduct is considered “discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities” or “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.” The Separation Authority determined that the applicant’s misconduct, which involved assaulting the applicant’s spouse with the butt of a weapon that was investigated and founded by the military police, met the regulatory standard required for separation for a pattern of misconduct. Therefore, no change is warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor’s Degree, being employed with the Department of the Navy and working on differences to maintain the marriage. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not warrant a discharge upgrade based on the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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, applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Dysthymic Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s Board accepted medically unmitigated basis of separation – Assault. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions that the applicant’s receipt of a “Pattern of Misconduct” discharge being improper and found that the applicant’s discharge met the standards of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s contentions of related to the applicant’s good service, including the applicant’s combat tours, the applicant’s behavior health conditions, the applicant’s family issues, and the applicant’s post-service accomplishments and determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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 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 SPD code and 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 AR20210002818 1