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 applicant did not get the proper help and support needed from the leadership. The applicant joined the military at the age of 18, and when the applicant turned 20 deployed to Afghanistan. The applicant had close family and friends die back home on top of trying to do the job, which was route clearance. Afghanistan changed the applicant as a person, and the applicant states it is impossible to come back without problems after looking for IEDs for nine months. Also, the applicant saw the team leader and platoon sergeant get blown up. Every day the applicant wakes up, the applicant remembers Afghanistan like it was yesterday. When in a combat MOS, one does not give a damn about how one feels and moves forward and does the job. At times the applicant felt alone. Most of the Soldiers just drank their problems away. The applicant's knee would swell up all the time. The only thing the medics gave the applicant was a bag full of ibuprofen which helped contain the swelling. The knee would swell so bad the applicant could not bend the leg. The pain would get so bad the applicant would say just say to cut the leg off. The applicant states when one is in a combat MOS, they do not care about the Soldier. One of the favorite lines was the Soldier is expendable and someone right now is lining up to take their spots. Then coming back to the United States trying to fit back in with society, and acting like it is okay. After being in the States for a while one wants to go back to Afghanistan. After being back in the United States, the applicant's friend died in the barracks, and it was the last straw. The applicant finally had enough of everything. The applicant was less than a year out from completing the contract, but the applicant could not wait to get out. The applicant had seven months left when the applicant was in trouble, which was the worse decision the applicant ever made. The applicant believes having the proper leadership, the applicant would not have done what the applicant did. The applicant felt isolated and alone. The applicant was just 21 with a bright future, but things changed because the military did not teach the applicant how to cope with the applicant's problems. The military only taught the applicant to drink the problems away. The applicant does not blame the leadership because it was still the applicant's decision to drive; however, it could have changed the outcome if the applicant had a little support, The applicant does not believe the applicant deserves a general discharge because of being diagnosed with PTSD. Had the PTSD been discovered sooner, it would have changed everything instead of the applicant believing the applicant was just crazy. The applicant was young. and like any young person soaks up everything learned from the surroundings and imitates the people which the applicant looks up to. In a records review conducted on 7 June 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 July 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: 19 July 2011 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 3 years, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (9 February 2013 - 29 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, USNAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders Number 203-0058, dated 22 July 2014, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 29 July 2014 from the Regular Army. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 30 July 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation (BA), effective 18 March 2014. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-2, on 13 March 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of the VA Rating Decision, which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent service-connection for post-traumatic stress disorder effective 25 January 2018. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision; VA Benefits letter; SF 513; Orders: CR-338-0032. 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 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 prescribes 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: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an 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 not receiving the proper help and support needed from leadership. Further, the leadership did not care about Soldiers in a combat MOS. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends being granted 70 percent service-connected for PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of the VA Rating Decision which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent service-connection for post-traumatic stress disorder effective 25 January 2018. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse and PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found an in-service BH diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse. The applicant is 90% service connected, 70% for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. After liberal consideration, the Board's Medical Advisor opined that the applicant's accepted basis of separation, Driving Under the Influence (DUI), is mitigated by the applicant's service-related PTSD as self-medication with alcohol is part the sequala of PTSD, but does not include the decision to drive after drinking. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. 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 Alcohol Abuse and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - the Board accepted DUI as the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends not receiving the proper help and support needed from leadership. Further, the leadership did not care about Soldiers in a combat MOS. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did finding evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Board determined an upgrade to the applicant's characterization was warranted and voted to grant an upgrade to Honorable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat outweighing the applicant's basis for separation (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. In this case, the Board determined that an upgrade to applicant's characterization was warranted, however, the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code are appropriate. (4) The applicant contends being granted 70 percent service-connected for PTSD by the VA. 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 the applicant's Alcohol Abuse and PTSD did not outweigh the basis for applicant's separation - the Board accepted DUI as the basis of separation. c. The majority of the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because of the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat, and partial mitigation due to combat related PTSD which offset] 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 not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002885 1