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 Request 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was involved in two IED explosions in 2002 and 2003. During those periods, the applicant complained of loss of memory, migraines/headaches, and sleepless nights. The applicant deployed a total of four times in more than nine years of service. The applicant was never treated or afforded the opportunity for medical treatment. The applicant was diagnosed with 80 percent service-connected disabilities for TBI, PTSD, Depression, Sleep insomnia/apnea. The applicant has never been convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors. Due to false accusations and self-defense, the claims used against the applicant in the separation board were dismissed. The discharge does not represent the actual facts linked to the civilian case. After the discharge, the applicant has not been involved in any behavioral problems, altercations, or run-ins with the law. The applicant worked for the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services as a case worker and obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Human Services. The applicant has been a productive citizen, working to give back to the community by advocating for those living in poverty needing government assistance. The applicant desires to advance the career and work with military communities but is unable because of the military discharge. The applicant has been married for the last eight years, with one child in college and three minor children, ages 12, 5, and 2 years old. The applicant receives treatment for PTSD and TBI, but does not believe the applicant should have been punished by not being able to further the career. The applicant requests the discharge be upgraded to honorable and a narrative reason, separation code, and reentry code change. 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 September 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 30 November 2007, the applicant assaulted Private E-2 (PV2) D.H. hitting PV2 D.H. in the head several times with a bottle. On 5 February 2008, the applicant received a CG Article 15 for disrespect and false official statements. On 2 March 2009, the applicant assaulted Specialist (SPC) R.M., grabbing SPC R.M. by the throat and kicking SPC R.M. in the side. On 22 February 2009, the applicant assaulted Ms. A.M., striking Ms. A.M. several times in the face with the fist. The applicant received a GOMOR for physically assaulting SPC R.M. The applicant, as a married Soldier, the inappropriate relationship with SPC M. created the appearance of impropriety and constituted behavior unbecoming as a noncommissioned officer (NCO). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 November 2009, 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). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 December 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 August 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 42A3P, Human Resources Specialist / 9 years, 4 months, 7 days / The applicant served 5 months, 11 months of prior active service, which is not reflected on the DD Form 214. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 August 1998 – 29 January 1999 / UNC (Break in Service) RA, 9 April 2001 – 23 August 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (3 August 2002 – 4 January 2003; 11 January 2003 – 17 June 2003); Iraq (4 August 2003 – 27 June 2004; 4 October 2006 – 15 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, ASR, OSR-4, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2007 – 31 March 2008 / Among the Best 1 April 2008 – 17 February 2009 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 September 2009, reflects the applicant physically assaulted a female enlisted Soldier on Fort Richardson, AK, on 2 March 2009. The military police were notified of a verbal altercation turned physical, after the applicant grabbed SPC R.M.’s neck and kicked SPC R.M. in the side. The applicant was cited for misappropriation of private property after throwing SPC R.M.’s clothes in the snow and losing SPC R.M.’s car keys. The applicant, as a married Soldier, the inappropriate relationship with SPC R.M. created the appearance of impropriety and constituted behavior unbecoming an NCO. The applicant provided a rebuttal from the defense counsel and a Sworn Statement from SPC A.M. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated15 September 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The Commander’s Report, undated, reflects the applicant had a record of non-judicial punishment in the form of a CG Article 15, dated 5 February 2008, for disobedience to a noncommissioned officer on two occasions and making a false official statement on two occasions. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $542 pay (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: Report of Medical History, dated 16 September 2009, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: SIT memory deficit reported; Loss of Consciousness 2-3’ reported; Insomnia reported. The applicant provided VA Rating Decision reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with Alcohol and Cannabis Abuse with Traumatic Brain Injury reported as memory loss and sleep issues (previously rated separately and also claimed as insomnia). The applicant was rated a combined total of 80 percent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being a productive citizen, working for the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services as a case worker and obtaining a Bachelor’s degree in Human Services. The applicant has been married for eight years and has four children. 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-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 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” 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 the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the 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 SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the reentry code should be changed. 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 being diagnosed with 80 percent service-connected disabilities for TBI, PTSD, Depression, Sleep insomnia/apnea. The applicant provided a VA rating decision reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with Alcohol and Cannabis abuse with Traumatic Brain Injury reported as memory loss and sleep issues (previously rated separately and also claimed as insomnia). The applicant was rated a combined total of 80 percent. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 15 September 2009, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends never being treated or afforded the opportunity for medical treatment. 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 an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, PTSD, Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury, which could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses and conditions of Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, and PTSD. Additional post-service BH diagnoses of Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury. The applicant is 100% service connected, 100% for PTSD and 40% for Traumatic Brain Disease. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s diagnoses of Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, PTSD, Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury do not mitigate the applicant’s assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with any of applicant’s any of the applicant’s behavioral health diagnoses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration of the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, PTSD, Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury do not outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct - Assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship. 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 no change is warranted because the applicant’s narrative reason appropriately reflects the applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends the separation code (SPD) should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that no change is warranted as the applicant’s SPD code accurately corresponds with the applicant’s reason for separation – Serious Misconduct. (3) The applicant contends the reentry code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that applicant’s reentry code of 3 is appropriate due to the applicant’s Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, PTSD, Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury. 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. (4) The applicant contends being diagnosed with 80 percent service-connected disabilities for TBI, PTSD, Depression, Sleep insomnia/apnea. The Board considered this contention and determined that none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions, including the applicant’s TBI, PTSD, and Depression outweighed the applicant’s misconduct - Assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including applicant’s behavioral health conditions and determined that an upgrade is not warranted based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offenses. (5) The applicant contends never being treated or afforded the opportunity for medical treatment. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with health care issues, and there is no evidence in the official records or provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant committing assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship is not an acceptable response to dealing with health care issues. Therefore, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (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 committing assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 Adult Psychological Abuse, Child Physical Abuse, Interpersonal relationship Problems, Partner Relational Problems, PTSD, Depression, Unspecified Mood Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct - assault, making a false statement, and having an inappropriate relationship. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s nine (9) years of service, three (3) combat tours, receipt of three (3) ARCOMs, and the applicant’s behavior health conditions and determined that no change is warranted based on the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct. 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 AR20210002913 1