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: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after redeployment from Afghanistan, the applicant began drinking very heavily. While a model Soldier during the day, the applicant drank heavily after duty. The applicant is unsure how much the deployments influenced the drinking as so much transpired while deployed. The applicant endured daily mortar and shelling, personally witnessed an overdose-related death, and was aware of other suicides. The applicant is convinced it all played a part in the behavior and did not have the tools or support to address the matters outside of attending AA. The transfer after the first Article 15 did not allow the applicant time to begin getting help. During redeployment, the applicant did not recognize problems existed because of the environment the applicant had been in while deployed. When the applicant went through medical screening, the applicant said the applicant was glad to be back as the applicant believed It was what “they” expected and wanted. The applicant did not have any sense anyone really cared what the applicant had experienced or seen. The applicant is still the one who is ultimately responsible for the actions and behavior. The applicant knows over the years, all military branches have changed the approach to returning warriors and understands there are many levels of post-traumatic stress. The applicant believes this played a significant part in the behavior and is seeking help for it. An upgrade will not only enable the applicant to attempt to reenter the military but will also give the applicant the peace of mind knowing the service was of value as well as the applicant, and there are those who do hear and act on what is just. Since discharge, the applicant has been sober, attends school, and works two jobs to ensure the future is more secure. The hope is to return to military service, as the applicant never wanted a discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 August 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 5 October 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 May 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Apprehended on two separate occasions for driving while intoxicated and cited twice for driving on a suspended license. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 May 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 11 June 2010, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 7 July 2010, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 9 September 2010, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 September 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 March 2003 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25B20, IT Specialist / 7 years, 8 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 January 2003 – 24 March 2003 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (13 December 2007 – 12 March 2009); Iraq (15 October 2003 – 7 March 2004; 5 October 2005 – 28 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-3CS, ARCOM, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2007 – 25 February 2009 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 4 December 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken Driving (Off Post). Military Police Report, dated 6 June 2009, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Driving While License is Suspended. (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 8 October 2009, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Driving While License Suspended or Revoked; Failure to Exercise Due Care; Traffic accident with Damage to Private Property; Traffic Accident Resulting in Personal Injury (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 30 January 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Drunken, or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle, Aircraft or Vessel; Fail to Obey General Order, driving on a post, Driving Revocation (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 8 February 2010, for on or about 29 January [2010], for physically controlling a vehicle, a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in the applicant’s breath was equal to or exceeded .08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath, which is the limit under of Alaska State Statute. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 18 February 2010, driving under the influence of alcohol on Fort Richardson, Alaska, on 30 January 2010. A Military Police Officer conducted a traffic stop of the applicant’s vehicle after observing vehicle turn from the Glenn Highway off-ramp and travel in the opposing traffic lane, coming very close to striking a guardrail on the Fort Richardson overpass. Upon contact with the applicant, the Officer noticed the odor of alcohol. The applicant failed a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and provided a breath sample resulting in a Breath Alcohol Content (BRAG) of .181 percent. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 10 March 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Abuse 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with allied brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been sober, attends school and works two jobs to ensure the future is more secure. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (4) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD 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 AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a Behavioral Health Evaluation, 10 March 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The BHE indicates a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse. The BHE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends since the discharge being sober, attending school and working two jobs to ensure the future is more secure. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant is 60% service-connected, 50% for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while a prior board upgraded the discharge to Honorable, the applicant still committed misconduct in deciding to drive, which while mitigated by the BH diagnoses does not completely dismiss it or expunge the evidence of the misconduct from the record. Accordingly, no further upgrade is warranted. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD completely outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – two DUIs. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board voted to maintain the RE-3 due to the mitigating PTSD also being service limiting. VA records also indicate a continued struggle with addiction, which would need further assessment prior to re-entry into service. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate (3) The applicant contends since the discharge being sober, attending school and working two jobs to ensure the future is more secure. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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 since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the current 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 before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD did not warrant further relief in addition to what a prior Board authorized. The current 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s PTSD does not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct of two DUIs. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with a separation for Minor Misconduct. The applicant has a pattern of misconduct while in military service and still is diagnosis with the condition PTSD which contributed to the misconduct. Requiring a waiver for future military service is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation and was within the discretion of the separation authority. ? 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 AR20210002836 1