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 Request and Issues. 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 is improper, inequitable, and not in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. The applicant received a Permanent 3 Profile, but the MEB was terminated, which denied the applicant’s rights and ability to be protected through the separation process. The applicant honorably served the country, deploying on five occasions, and developing a disability connected to the combat experiences. As early as 2007, the applicant unknowingly suffered from PTSD and was formally diagnosed on 9 September 2009, three months after the fourth deployment. The applicant willingly went to receive treatment, but received orders for PCS to Fort Knox in the same month of the diagnosis and was deployed in 2010. The applicant did not receive adequate care for the disability while deployed. Throughout the years, the applicant’s PTSD became progressively worse, but the applicant did not realize it until it was too late. During the applicant’s fifth and last deployment in 2011, the applicant experienced multiple attacks, which resulted in fatalities, and the applicant attempted to commit suicide while on R&R. The incident which led to the discharge happened three months after the deployment. The applicant had not adjusted to returning to the U.S. and was not receiving the proper sleep because of frequent nightmares. One day, the applicant’s children started to fight and the applicant immediately became irritated by the loud commotion. The anxiety dominated the situation and out of impulsive control, the applicant reacted with reckless behavior. The applicant had flashbacks and lashed out. This isolated incident was very out of character, but the applicant does not view the situation lightly. Lieutenant Colonel M. recommended the applicant trial by special court-martial and Captain (CPT) B. recommended a summary court-martial. The commanders were new to the unit and the applicant was able to work with CPT B. The applicant believes the case should have been disposed of by summary court-martial and the applicant should have received a medical discharge. The applicant was merely too incompetent to process what was occurring. The applicant believes the discharge was unjust due to the service-connected disability, which establishes a nexus between a behavioral health condition and the specific offense leading to the separation. The applicant provided evidence in the medical records the service-connected condition has plagued the applicant since 2007. Furthermore, the applicant completed parenting education groups, in which the goal was to increase capacity to discipline using nurturing practices and to eliminate abusive practices and to adopt reasonable expectations for the children's behavior, abilities, and level of nurturing. These were the goals of the meetings the applicant was required to attend, but they do not depict any childhood rearing. The applicant believes the incident and the separation could have been avoided had the applicant been provided proper and adequate treatment once the applicant displayed symptoms of PTSD and formally diagnosed. The mental illness was incurred between 2004 and 2011. The applicant had a total of over four and a half years in a combat zone. b. Board Type and Decision. In a records review conducted on 7 June 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 February 2007 / 3 years / The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the initial / most recent enlistment period. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y30, Unit Supply Specialist / 12 years, 6 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 August 2000 – 13 February 2007/ HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Kosovo, SWA / Afghanistan (14 June 2008 – 28 June 2009; 28 December 2010 – 21 December 2011); Iraq (2 February 2004 – 28 January 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-3CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM-4, NDSM-BSS, NDSM, GWOTSM, OSR-3, NATOMDL-2, CAB / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the GWOTEM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 reflects awards NDSM, which is represented by NDSM-BSS, as a subsequent award, therefore, the entry “NDSM”, was entered in error. g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2006 – 25 September 2011 / Fully Capable 25 September 2011 – 24 September 2012 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children Department for Community Based Services, continuous Quality Assessment Familial-CPS Narrative Outline, dated 27 May 2012, which reflects the applicant was under investigation by Child Protective Services for whipping the children, T.N. and J.N., for fighting over a game. The whipping caused bruising on the children bodies and according to J.N., the applicant’s spouse treated the bruises with peroxide. The Risk Assessment Conclusion was determined to be at moderate risk. The applicant provided Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Agent’s Investigation Report, undated, reflects a query of the Centralized Operations Police Suite (COPS) and Army Criminal Investigation and Criminal Intelligence System revealed the applicant was listed as a related person for a report 025505-2012-MPC032 reference Department of Community Based Services (DCBS) Escort at the applicant’s residence. The applicant consented to an interview, in which the applicant admitted to striking child, T.N., and stepchild, J.S., with a computer cable on 2 April 2012, because the children were arguing over a video game. The applicant provided two Memorandums, subject: Forwarding of Charges in accordance with R.C.M. 401(c)(2)(A) and R.C.M. 403(b)(3), dated 18 July 2012 and 30 July 2012, reflecting CPT B. recommended trial by summary court-martial and LTC M. recommended trial by special court-martial. Special Court-Martial Order Number 8, dated 24 January 2013, reflects the applicant was arraigned on the following: The Charge, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ: Specification 1: Did on 2 April 2012, unlawfully strike J.S., a child under the age of 16 years, on the arms and on the legs with a computer cord. Plea: None Entered. Finding: None Entered. Specification 1: Did on 2 April 2012, unlawfully strike T.N., a child under the age of 16 years, on the arms and on the legs with a computer cord. Plea: None Entered. Finding: None Entered. The proceedings were terminated on 26 November 2012. The accused’s request for Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, was approved on 24 January 2013, for the issuance of a discharge under general (under honorable conditions). The Charge and its specifications were dismissed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: The Family Advocacy letter, dated 9 August 2012, reflecting the applicant and the applicant’s spouse completed the Parenting Education Group. The physician indicated it was important to recognize the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic and was experiencing various symptoms, which caused problems in the applicant’s personal life. Physical Profile, dated 22 October 2012, which reflects the applicant was placed on permanent profile for the following medical condition: PTSD. The physician assistant recommended the applicant for an MEB and indicated no weapons or deployment to combat area. The approval authority did not certify and refer the profile to an MEB. Chronological Record of Medical Care from 27 March 2007 to 12 February 2013, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with Chronic PTSD; Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified; Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood; Insomnia; Combat Related Stressors; GAF 65; Other Specified Family Circumstances; and Nightmare Disorder. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD on 9 September 2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 9 January 2017, reflecting the VA granted the applicant 100 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with alcohol, cannabis, tobacco abuse (to include claims for insomnia, irritability, adjustment disorder with anxious mood, and combat related stressors). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Enlisted Record Brief; Deployment and PTSD Timeline; medical records; T.N. and J.S. medical records; record of court-martial proceedings; Department of Behavioral Health, Family Advocacy letter; two VA letters; Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children Department for Community Based Services documents; four third party statements; three certificates of training; CID Agent’s Investigation Report; various photographs. 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 1, paragraph 1-34e states that Soldiers undergoing administrative separation under chapter 10 are eligible to be referred to and complete the MEB phase of DES before the discharge is approved. (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) Paragraph 3-5c states [t]he reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the separation, will be considered on the issue of characterization. As a general matter, characterization will be based upon a pattern of behavior other than an isolated incident. There are circumstances, however, in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for characterization. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (7) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (8) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. AR 635-40 paragraphs 4-3f(1) states [e]enlisted Soldiers who are approved for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial are ineligible for referral to the MEB and PEB phases of the DES (see AR 635–200). If the Soldier is in the DES process, the applicant’s DES case will be terminated, and the Soldier is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. g. 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-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 evidence of AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to a medical discharge. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents which supports a diagnosis of in-service Chronic PTSD; Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified; Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood; Insomnia; Combat Related Stressors; Other Specified Family Circumstances; and, Nightmare Disorder. The applicant provided third party statements describing significant changes in the applicant’s demeanor after deployment. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant provided a VA rating decision to support the contention, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent service-connected for PTSD with alcohol, cannabis, tobacco abuse (to include claims for insomnia, irritability, adjustment disorder with anxious mood, and combat related stressors). The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5c states that circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. T The applicant contends adequate medical treatment would have prevented the incident which led to the discharge, and the charges should have been disposed of by summary court-martial.. The applicant provided in-service medical documents, which reflect medical treatment as early as 2007 and a diagnosis of PTSD in 2009. In regard to the disposition of charges, the applicant provided documents reflecting CPT B. recommended summary court-martial and forwarded the charges to the summary court-martial convening authority (SCMCA), LTC M. The SCMCA recommended special court-martial and forwarded the charges to the SPCMCA for disposition. 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 applicant contends the discharge is improper, and not in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), establishes policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of certain enlisted Soldiers of the Army National Guard of the United States and the United States Army Reserve. At the time of separation, the applicant was a Soldier in the Regular Army, which is governed by Army Regulation 635-200. AR 635-40 paragraphs 4-3f(1) states “Enlisted Soldiers who are approved for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial are ineligible for referral to the MEB and PEB phases of the DES (see AR 635–200). If the Soldier is in the DES process, the Soldier’sDES case will be terminated, and the Soldier is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.” The applicant requests discharge for medical retirement. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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’s PTSD may mitigate the applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found the applicant’s PTSD existed during the applicant’s military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and determined that the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s basis of separation - physical abuse of a child and stepchild with a computer cord as physical abuse is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, or other behavioral health conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – physical abuse of a child and stepchild with a computer cord. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to a medical discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the narrative reason is proper and equitable as the applicant requested a Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, which was approved on 24 January 2013 by the convening authority. Therefore, no change is warranted. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – physical abuse of a child and stepchild with a computer cord. The Board also determined that the totality of the applicant’s record did not warrant a discharge upgrade based on the applicant’s PTSD. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that the ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5 authorizes separation for isolated incidents when a Soldier’s conduct is reflected by a single incident. In this case, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate because, while the applicant’s misconduct may have been isolated incident, the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the seriousness of the misconduct - physically abusing the applicant’s child and stepchild with a computer cord - warrants. Therefore, the discharge is proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends adequate medical treatment would have prevented the incident which led to the discharge, and the charges should have been disposed of by summary court-martial. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to request medical treatment, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. Further, the Board determined that, while the applicant’s company commander recommended a summary court-martial, the leadership decision was to refer the applicant’s case to a special court-martial, which was dismissed when the applicant’s request for a Chapter 10 discharge in lieu of court- martial was approved. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge and narrative reason for discharge, In lieu of Trial by Court Marshal was proper and equitable. (6) The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but 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 on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By physically abusing the applicant’s child and stepchild with a computer cord, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (7) The applicant contends the discharge is improper, and not in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. The Board considered this contention and determined that, because the applicant served in the Active Component, Army Regulation 135-178 is not applicable to the applicant’s discharge because AR 135-178 only applies to Reserve Component Soldiers. However, the applicable regulations, AR 635-200 and AR 635-40, do not authorize enlisted Soldiers approved for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to be referred to the MEB and PEB phases of the DES. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (8) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons and requests a discharge for medical retirement. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of physical abuse of applicant’s child and stepchild. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety that the applicant’s discharge violated AR 135-178 and found that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as AR 135-178 is applicable to the Reserve Component not the Active Component, which the applicant was a member at the time of the applicant’s discharge. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions relating to inequity, including the applicant’s good service, combat tours, and behaviorial health conditions and found that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant an a discharge upgrade based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense. 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 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 / 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 AR20210002905 1