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, honorable service to include overseas service. On the applicant's 25th Birthday, 24 February 2013, the applicant was having a few drinks with buddies at an on post bar and decided to call it a night a few hours later. The applicant's buddy was drunk and began crying about a failing marriage. The applicant decided not to place the buddy in a cab and to drive to the nearest gas station on post, but it was closed. The applicant proceeded to drive to an off post gas station to get the buddy some coffee and sandwiches. The applicant went into the gas station where he encountered a police officer who smelled alcohol on the applicant's breath. The applicant was questioned by the officer and decided to tell the truth. The applicant was taken to jail and charged with DUI and because it was the first offense, the applicant spent 3 days in jail, had 120 hours of community service, and probation for six months, serving all requirements as ordered. The applicant was punished a second time by receiving an Article 15 and was kicked out of the service. The applicant was told by a friend at the unit, the battalion commander who hammered the applicant, received a DUI and was forced to retire, but received all benefits. This makes the applicant second guess everything the applicant stood to protect and defend and wonder if the leaders who lead from the front actually have Soldier's best interest in mind. The applicant developed severe anxiety, depression, and agitation, and ultimately PTSD while on the 2010 to 2011 deployment. The applicant returned to Hawaii and started drinking heavily. The applicant received counseling for anger management, depression, marriage counseling, and alcohol abuse. The applicant provided a letter from Major (MAJ) (Retired) A.V., LCSW, LISW, BCD, the applicant's doctor while in Iraq, explains the medical documents did not upload to the system in Germany. This would explain why there was nothing in the applicant's medical records showing a history of the applicant's issues and problems when the applicant reviewed the records with the Department Veterans Affairs representative. The applicant provides character references as evidence to the mental condition. In a records review conducted on 5 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The Notification is dated 10 October 2013, but the AMHRR is void of the Acknowledgment. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 15 March 2013, the applicant was placed under arrest by the Saint Robert, MO, Police Department for driving while intoxicated. The applicant submitted to a chemical test which revealed a BAC of .187, over twice the legal limit and the applicant was given a General Officer Letter of Reprimand for the offense. On 16 April 2013, the applicant was arrested for domestic assault consummated by battery. It was discovered this was a pattern with the applicant, driving on a suspended in 2012 and domestic abuse twice in 2010. The applicant drove with a suspended driver's license on post after the post privileges had been suspended for a year and did not notify the chain of command. The applicant received a GOMOR for the driving while intoxicated and an Article 15 for wrongfully operating a vehicle on post with a suspended driver's license. The applicant had been counseled in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraphs 1-19 and 14-12b. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 5 years, 4 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 August 2008 - 17 November 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (28 June 2010 - 14 June 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR / The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the ARCOM, but the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Pulaski County Sheriff's Department Crime/Incident Report, dated 15 March 2013, reflects the applicant was arrested for DWI (Alcohol Intoxication) (15 March 2013). The applicant received a citation for Driving While Intoxicated and Driving on a Suspended License with a scheduled court date of 26 April 2013. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 11 April 2013, reflects the applicant was driving while intoxicated. On 15 March 2013, the applicant entered the Kum and Go gas station in Saint Robert, MO. After being involved in a conversation with a Pulaski County Sherriff's Deputy, the Deputy detected a strong odor of intoxicants emanating from the applicant's breath. The applicant grabbed the officer's arm and the officer instructed the applicant not to touch the officer. The applicant entered the vehicle and tried to depart the gas station, but when the applicant attempted to back up, nearly backed into a Saint Robert Police Department vehicle. The Deputy performed several field sobriety tests, all of which the applicant failed. The Deputy arrested the applicant and a chemical test of breath revealed the applicant's BAC was .187, over twice the legal limit. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a letter from Major (Retired) A.W., LCSW, LISW, BCD, dated 22 May 2018, reflecting the applicant was treated for anxiety, depression, and agitation during the 2010-2011 deployment to Iraq, due to duty in the combat environment. The applicant was tentatively diagnosed with PTSD due to adverse childhood experiences, or complex trauma, and deployment exacerbated the symptoms. The social worker requested the applicant be assessed for a possible medical discharge and continue to receive individual counseling upon returning to Hawaii. The applicant's prognosis was poor and at the time did not meet medical retention standards for the U.S. Army. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 149; self-authored statement; MAJ (Retire) A.V. letter; seven third party character witness statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. 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 PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant provided a letter from a licensed social worker reflecting the applicant was treated during deployment for anxiety, depression, and agitation and tentatively diagnosed with PTSD. The letter further explains why the applicant's medical records do not contain this information. The applicant provided third party statements attesting to a change in the applicant's behavior after deployment. The AMHRR does not contain any mental health diagnosis and is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the battalion commander who punished the applicant, received a DUI and was allowed to retire with rank and benefits. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The applicant contends harassment from the supervisor. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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. Applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder and Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA with PTSD that could mitigate the basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Adjustment Disorder and Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA with PTSD. Service connection establishes that PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the applicant's medical conditions partially mitigate the basis of separation. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that applicant's service connected PTSD partially mitigates the DUI given the nexus between PTSD and using substances to self-medicate. However, PTSD, nor any other applicant BH condition does not mitigate domestic assault or driving on a suspended license, the non-medically mitigated basis for applicant's separation, because there is no natural sequelae and no evidence that applicant's PTSD or other BH conditions were associated with this unmitigated misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that applicant's PTSD, and other BH conditions do not outweigh the medically unmitigated domestic assault or driving on a suspended license given no natural sequelae and no evidence that applicant's PTSD or other BH conditions were associated with this unmitigated misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined applicant's PTSD partially mitigates the DUI, but that PTSD and other applicant BH conditions do not outweigh the unmitigated domestic assault or driving on a suspended license. (2) The applicant contends the battalion commander who punished the applicant, received a DUI and was allowed to retire with rank and benefits. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's assertion of unfair and partiality decisions made between said conduct of the commander, however the Board determined that the assertion alone did not warrant any change to applicant's discharge based on the severity of the applicant's unmitigated offenses. (3) The applicant contends harassment from the supervisor. The Board considered this contention but determined that the assertion did not outweigh the weight of the evidence that warranted no change to the applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 misconduct of domestic assault or driving on a suspended license, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined 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, the applicant's PTSD mitigated the DUI offense, but does not outweigh the unmitigated domestic assault or driving on a suspended license, and the discharge was 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 and 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 AR20210002969 1