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 bad conduct. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable.

The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge has prevented employment 
opportunities, furthering the education and receiving benefits from the VA for PTSD related 
issues. The applicant claims applicant was an infantryman and did a combat tour to Afghanistan in 
2011, where some of the applicant's battle buddies were killed and injured. The applicant claims 
applicant is not trying to justify the actions leading up to the discharge, but rather give a little 
insight of the entire situation. The applicant claims applicant has grown since the separation and 
realizes the applicant did wrong and made ignorant and careless mistakes. The applicant claims 
applicant has since sought help and is completing an addiction recovery program. The applicant 
claims applicant recently obtained a family and does not want the past mistakes to affect their 
future. The applicant asks to please help the applicant to get the help the applicant needs and 
have a more positive and productive future. 

In a records review conducted on 26 May 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined that 
the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, to 
include combat service, and post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to 
grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under 
Honorable Conditions. 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, 
Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct

   b.	Date of Discharge: 17 June 2014

   c.	Separation Facts: 

       (1)	Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct 
Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 16, dated 16 August 2013, 
the applicant was found guilty of the following:

Charge I: Article 92, UCMJ. Plea: Guilty. The Specification: At or near Fort Drum, New York, on 
or about 9 June 2012, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Paragraph 4(e), Fort Drum 
Installation Policy Memorandum 10-30, Prohibition of Certain Unregulated Intoxicants, dated 
21 April 2010, by wrongfully using Bath Salts. (On motion of Trial Counsel, the symbols, "4(e)" 
was deleted and the symbols, "4(b)" were substituted therefore; and the word, "using" was 
deleted and the word, "possessing" was substituted therefore.)

Charge II: Article 128, UCMJ: Dismissed.

Charge III: Article 85, UCMJ. Plea: Not Guilty, but Guilty to a violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 
Absence Without Leave. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of a violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 
absence without leave. The Specification: On or about 23 July 2012, without authority and with 
intent to remain away therefrom permanently, be absent from the unit, to wit: C Troop, 3d 
Squadron, 71ST Cavalry Regiment, located at Fort Drum, New York, and did remain so absent 
in desertion until being apprehended on or about 20 January 2013. (On motion of Trial Counsel, 
the symbols, "29" were deleted and the symbols, "25" were substituted therefore.) Plea: Guilty, 
except the words, "and with intent to remain away therefore permanently" and "in desertion." To 
the excepted words, Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty, except the words, "and with intent to remain 
away therefrom permanently," and, "in desertion." To the excepted words, Not Guilty.

Charge IV: Article 121, UCMJ: Dismissed.

Charge V: Article 89, UCMJ. Plea: Guilty. The Specification: At or near Fort Drum, New York, on 
or about 8 February 2013, behave with disrespect toward Captain (O-3) C.D., the superior 
commissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be the superior commissioned officer, 
by saying to First Sergeant (E-8) C.S.S., "I fucking hate you and Captain D." and "CPT D. is a 
piece of shit," or words to effect. Plea: Guilty.

Charge VI: Article 91, UCMJ. Plea: Guilty. The Specification: At or near Fort Drum, New York, 
on or about 8 February 2013, was disrespectful in language toward First Sergeant (E-8) C.S.S., 
a superior noncommissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be a superior 
noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of office, by saying, "You are a bitch 
1SG, and I fucking hate you," or words to effect. Plea: Guilty.

       (2)	Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for three months; and to be 
discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge.

       (3)	Date/Sentence Approved: 16 August 2013 / Only so much of the sentence, a 
reduction E-1, confinement for three months, and a bad conduct discharge was approved and, 
except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. 
The applicant was credited with 82 days of confinement towards the sentence to confinement.

       (4)	Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate 
General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court 
of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence.

       (5)	Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 19 May 2014

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

   a.	Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 June 2010 / 3 years, 16 weeks

   b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 95

   c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 
4 months, 2 days

   d.	Prior Service / Characterizations: None

   e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (4 April 2011 - 
17 March 2012)

   f.	Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NATOMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, 
OSR, CIB

   g.	Performance Ratings: NA

   h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the 
applicant's duty status changed as follows:

	From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 24 July 2012; 
	From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 23 August 2012.

Report of Return of Absentee, dated 26 January 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended 
by civil authorities and returned to military control.

Special Court-Martial Order as described in paragraph 3c(1).

   i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return: 226 days:

AWOL, 23 July 2012 - 24 January 2013 / Apprehended by Civil Authorities
CMA, 11 February 2013 - 24 March 2013 / Released from Confinement

   j.	Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 214.

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is completing an addiction recovery 
program, and now has a family.

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), dated 25 September 2019, 
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. A characterization of under 
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows 
such characterization.

       (4)	Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an 
administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be 
issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based 
on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a 
significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.

       (5)	Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only 
to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be 
completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality 
of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA.

   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 "JJD" as 
the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other).

   f.	Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, 
governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into 
the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 
1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. 
Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. 
Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last 
period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the 
sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged 
or modified by appeal through the judicial process.

The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be 
appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of 
the punishment imposed.  

The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the 
service accomplishments and the quality of service.

The applicant contends suffering from PTSD related issues. The applicant's AMHRR contains 
no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the 
contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR does not contain a 
mental status evaluation (MSE).

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.

The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veterans, and educational benefits through the 
GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 
Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. 
Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
further assistance.

The applicant is completing an addiction recovery program, and now has a family. The Army 
Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of 
a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based 
solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board 
reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments 
help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the 
member's overall character.

9.	BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: 

   a.	As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following 
factors: 

       (1)	Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the 
discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD 
and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found 
applicant's assertion having PTSD, but there is no evidence to support that applicant has been 
diagnosed with PTSD or any other mitigating BH conditions.  

       (2)	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's 
Medical Advisor found applicant asserted having PTSD during military service. 

       (3)	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. 
The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration opined that while applicant 
asserts having PTSD, the lack of specificity regarding the triggering event, and in turn nexus 
with the applicant's misconduct that lead to applicant's separation, applicant's PTSD partially 
mitigates the applicant's wrongful use of Bath Salts and disrespectful language toward a 
superior noncommissioned officer.  

       (4)	Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after 
applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, and determined that 
the applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the partially mitigated basis for separation. 

   b.	Response to Contentions: 

       (1)	The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered 
this contention when voting to upgrade the characterization due to the inequity of the discharge 
when considering applicant's service, including combat service, and post service 
accomplishments. 

       (2)	The applicant contends suffering from PTSD related issues. The Board liberally 
considered this contention, however the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD did not 
outweigh the partially mitigated basis of separation.

       (3)	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.

       (4)	The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veterans, and educational benefits 
through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include 
educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not 
fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should 
contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance

       (5)	The applicant is completing an addiction recovery program, and now has a family. The 
ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  
However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be 
upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to 
leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if 
post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an 
aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. In this case, the Board 
determined that the post service accomplishments combined with the applicant's military 
service, including combat service, made the discharge inequitable.

   c.	The Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the 
applicant's length of service, to include combat service, and post service accomplishments.

   d.	Rationale for Decision:

       (1)	The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, 
Under Honorable Conditions because the discharge was too harsh for the possession of bath 
salts when considering applicant's military service, to include combat service, completion of 
confinement and post-service accomplishments. 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 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:  Yes	

   b.	Change Characterization to:  General, Under Honorable Conditions

   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
AR20210002958
8