1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, during the time in the Army the applicant was always dedicated and paying attention to detail. The applicant claims applicant over achieved in PT and was loyal to the motor pool as the company's only 92F as an E-3. The applicant claims applicant simply messed up at a young age and did not realize how much of the applicant's life and career could be in danger. The applicant claims applicant fell into a deep depression and simply gave up during the applicant's time on active duty. Now the applicant claims applicant is much better and accepts full responsibility over life, decisions and actions. The applicant requests another chance at life and to be happy. The applicant claims applicant has been working very hard to improve while waiting on a possible upgrade. Although finding work with an under other than honorable conditions discharge is very hard, the applicant claims applicant has managed to find employment at Amazon FC. If the applicant gets an upgrade the applicant plans on going to school and continuing higher education at FAMU college of music with a minor in business management. In a records review conducted on 12 April 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 4 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 13 September 2017, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation Article 90, UCMJ. Specification 1: On or about 23 May 2017, for disobeying a lawful order from CPT C. J., by ceasing all contact with PFC C. M. Specification 2: On or about 3 June 2017, for disobeying a lawful order from CPT C. J., by ceasing all contact with PFC C. M. Specification 3: On or about 8 June 2017, for disobeying a lawful order from CPT C. J., by ceasing all contact with PFC C. M. Specification 4: On or about 12 June 2017 and on or about 14 June 2017, for disobeying a lawful order from CPT C. J., by ceasing all contact with PFC C. M. Charge II: Violation Article 112a, UCMJ. Specification 1: Between on or about 29 May 2017 and on or about 8 June 2017, wrongfully introduce marijuana, a controlled substance, onto a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or installation used by the armed forces or under control of the armed forces. Specification 2: On divers occasions, on or about 29 May 2017 and on or about 8 June 2017, for wrongful use of marijuana, a controlled substance. Specification 3: On divers occasions, on or about 1 August 2017 and on or about 16 August 2017, for wrongful use of marijuana, a controlled substance. Specification 4: On divers occasions, on or about 23 August 2017 and on or about 6 September 2017, for wrongful use of marijuana, a controlled substance. Charge III: Violation of Article 128, UCMJ. Specification 1: On or about 28 April 2017, assault PFC C. M., by striking on the ribs with fist. Specification 2: On or about 28 April 2017, assault PFC C. M. by striking on the face with hand. Specification 3: On or about 28 April 2017, assault PFC C. M. by placing hands around the neck. Charge IV: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Specification 1: On or about 3 May 2017, wrongfully communicate to PFC C. M. a threat, to wit: "You really fuckin (sic) with me right now" and "I better not catch you out somewhere, 100 percent symbol, on me, 100, 100, 100," or words to that effect, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Specification 2: On or about 23 May 2017, wrongfully communicate to PFC C. M. a threat, to wit: "You and your best friend better get out of town cause I'm on y'all 100 now got tell her so she can go bitch to the MPs," or words to that effect, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Specification 3: Between on or about 12 June 2017 and 14 June 2017, wrongfully communicate to PFC C. M. a threat, to wit: "You bold enough to run your mouth, you bold enough to catch this sniper 100," such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 September 2017 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 September 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 December 2015 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 9 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Protective Order, dated 3 May 2017, reflects the applicant was restrained from initiating any contact or communication with PFC C. M. either directly or through a third party. Also the applicant was to remain at all times and places at least 250 feet away from PFC C. M. Law Enforcement Report, dated 18 May 2017, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Assault (UCMJ - Article 128) and Communicating a Threat (UCMJ - Article 134). Law Enforcement Report, dated 2 June 2017, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Assault (UCMJ - Article 128) and Communicating a Threat (UCMJ - Article 134). Law Enforcement Report, dated 20 June 2017, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Suicidal Ideations (None - No Criminal Act); Communicating a Threat (UCMJ - Article 134); and Violation of Military Protective Order (UCMJ - Article 92). Law Enforcement Report, dated 21 July 2017, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Wrongful Introduction of Marijuana (UCMJ - Article 112a) and Wrongful Use of Marijuana - Detected by Urinalysis (UCMJ - Article 112a). Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 5 September 2017, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 468 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 16 August 2017. Law Enforcement Report, dated 11 September 2017, reflects the applicant was being investigated for Wrongful Use of Marijuana - Detected by Urinalysis (UCMJ - Article 112a). Charge Sheet as described in paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a letter from Phoenix Health Center, dated 25 September 2018, which reflects the applicant was referred for Addictive Disease Services. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; third party letter; DA Form 4856; applicant's request for discharge; Phoenix Heath Center letter; Benchmark Human Services Mobile Crisis Safety Plan; Medical Center of Peach County Patient Summary and Instructions. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment at Amazon FC. 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) 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) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2- 3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends falling into a deep depression and giving up during the time in the Army. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of behavior health 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. 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 of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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 claims applicant has obtained employment with Amazon. 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. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 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 that could potentially mitigate the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that a C&P examination diagnosed applicant with PTSD during military service, but the reported stressor for the PTSD diagnosis was "Veteran reports that the circumstances surrounding his discharge were stressful." (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that the applicant does not have any BH mitigating diagnosis because the PTSD etiology occurred after applicant's misconduct, and therefore does not mitigate the applicant's wrongful conduct that was the basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the applicant's unmitigated basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention but determined the applicant's discharge narrative was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but concluded due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not warrant any change to the discharge, and the discharge is both proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends good service. 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 disobeying a lawful to cease contact with PFC CM on four (4) separate occasions, Striking PFC CM on the ribs with fist, on the face with hand, and placing hands around the neck and wrongfully communicating a threat to PFC CM on three (3) separate occasions, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends falling into a deep depression and giving up during the time in the Army. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with BH concerns, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant disobeying a lawful to cease contact with PFC CM on four (4) separate occasions, Striking PFC CM on the ribs with fist, on the face with hand, and placing hands around the neck and wrongfully communicating a threat to PFC CM on three (3) separate occasions, is not an acceptable response to dealing with depression or PTSD, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. (7) The applicant claims applicant has obtained employment with Amazon. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 this post-service factor does not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge and the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 asserted PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated basis of separation misconduct, 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 under the same pretexts, 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 AR20210003028 1