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 was diagnosed with PTSD and was discharged for misconduct (martial issues) which occurred less than a year after returning from deployment to OIF. The PTSD was present before and during the discharge. The applicant claims that applicant did not receive any Article 15s or counseling statements because the battalion was getting ready to deploy and the command chose to administratively discharge the applicant. During the discharge proceedings, the applicant claims that it was known the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. In a records review conducted on 10 May 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 February 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 January 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received counseling statements for four Failure-to-Report incidents and the applicant had been involved in numerous domestic violence incidents with the spouse. The applicant continued to display such unacceptable behavior. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 January 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 June 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 9 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 April 2006 – 24 June 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (6 October 2006 – 22 December 2007; 19 January 2009 – 13 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: No Contact Order and Revocation of Pass Privileges, dated 18 May 2010, reflects the applicant was given a lawful order to cease and desist any and all contact with the applicant’s spouse. Additionally, the applicant’s off-post pass privileges were revoked for 72 hours. The applicant’s alleged conduct may be considered prejudicial to good order and discipline. Military Protective Order, dated 25 May 2010, reflects the applicant was restrained for initiating any contact or communication with the applicant’s spouse. The order shall be effective until 2 June 2010. Magistrate’s Order for Emergency Protection, dated 3 June 2010, reflects the applicant’s spouse was granted an emergency protection order against the applicant. Military Protective Order, dated 3 June 2010, reflects the applicant was restrained for initiating any contact or communication with the applicant’s spouse. The order shall be effective until 1 July 2010. Military Protective Order, dated 23 September 2010, reflects the applicant was restrained for initiating any contact or communication with the applicant’s spouse. The order shall be effective until 10 October 2010. Military Police Report, dated 12 October 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Assault (Domestic Disturbance) (On Post) and Spousal Abuse (On Post). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 November 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct Partner Relational Problems and Axis II: Antisocial Personality Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of the VA rating decision, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent for PTSD effective 6 June 2016. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; VA rating decision; two Certificates of Completion. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a certificate from ITT Technical Institute, which reflects the applicant earned an Associate of Science Degree in Network Systems Administration and completed 200 hours in Wind Turbine Technician Safety and Technical Training. 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 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 family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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 applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD before and during the discharge process. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 10 November 2010, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct Partner Relational Problems and Axis II: Antisocial Personality Disorder. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provided a copy of the VA rating decision which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent disability for PTSD. The applicant provided a certificate from ITT Technical Institute, which reflects the applicant earned an Associate of Science Degree in Network Systems Administration and completed 200 hours in Wind Turbine Technician Safety and Technical Training. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with 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 the PTSD condition did exist and stemmed from traumatic events that occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical, after applying liberal consideration, opined that the applicant’s PTSD mitigates applicant’s FTRs because there is an association between applicant’s PTSD and avoidant behavior. However, the multiple acts of domestic violence towards applicant’s spouse are not part of the applicant’s sequelae of PTSD and, as such, are not mitigated. (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, and voted that applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated multiple acts of domestic violence towards applicant’s spouse as the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the narrative reason is appropriate based on the applicant’s unmitigated serious misconduct of domestic violence acts towards applicant’s spouse. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued, or denied by the applicant’s Command. The Board concluded that the applicant’s unmitigated domestic violence towards applicant’s spouse is not an acceptable response to dealing with family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board 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 the applicant’s unmitigated acts of domestic violence towards applicant’s spouse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant provided a certificate from ITT Technical Institute, which reflects the applicant earned an Associate of Science Degree in Network Systems Administration and completed 200 hours in Wind Turbine Technician Safety and Technical Training. 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 considered these post-service accomplishments but determined that the applicant’s discharge is appropriate due to the seriousness of the applicant’s unmitigated misconduct. 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 unmitigated acts of domestic violence towards applicant’s spouse, and the current discharge characterization is both proper and equitable. 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. (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 AR20210002950 1