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, during the period in question, the applicant’s home life became very unstable. The applicant was dealing with the discovery of the spouse’s infidelity and soon after, the death of an unborn child. The depression the applicant was in went untreated and began to disrupt other functions of the applicant’s life including a sleeping disorder for which the applicant still receives treatment. The disorder caused the applicant to be late to PT on many occasions. Without treating the depression, the applicant was unable to overcome the disorder. The remainder of the applicant’s military record is impeccable the applicant was an exemplary Soldier who received an Army Achievement Medal for outstanding service. The applicant was also respected among peers and officers. With an upgrade, the applicant will be able to start college. In a records review conducted on 7 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty numerous times; the applicant violated the barrack’s SOP on multiple occasions by smoking and allowing an unauthorized person to live in the applicant’s room; the applicant lied to a non commissioned and commissioned officers regarding payment on the travel card; the applicant’s reasons for being late to formation, and the applicant’s noncompliance with the plan of action in a counseling statement; the applicant violated multiple orders including no contact orders and orders to meet grooming standards; the applicant engaged in underage drinking; and the applicant was found to be incapacitated for the proper performance of duties, due to previous overindulgence in intoxication liquor or alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 May 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 June 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 June 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25F1P, Network Switching Systems Operator Maintainer / 2 years, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 6 December 2012, for failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 8, 21 and 28 November 2012; and with intent to deceive, make to SFC G. W. and SSG J. C., an official statement, to wit: the applicant was at the hospital with the spouse all night which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false on or about 28 November 2012. The punishment consisted of 7 days extra duty. No Contact Order, dated 9 January 2013, reflects the applicant was given a lawful order to cease and desist any and all contact with A. M. CG Article 15, dated 27 February 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 4, 12 and 20 February 2013; and with intent to deceive, make to SFC G. W. an official statement, to wit: the applicant had completed a four-page assigned essay and it was on the computer which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false on or about 20 February 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $396 pay, suspended; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Consent for Search and Seizure Form, dated 12 April 2013, reflects the applicant was suspected of being drunk on duty and underage drinking. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 April 2013, 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. It was noted the Service Member was seen by BH. The command formally requested the results of this examination and the subject individual expressed an awareness of same. As such, a psychological examination was conducted. A clinical interview, mental status evaluation, and review of medical history were conducted. Soldier has history of domestic violence onto where the Soldier was designated victim. The nature of this relationship may have contributed to the repeated tardiness and evasiveness exhibited by the Soldier. The spouse is currently incarcerated for the reported violence. However, in response to Command influence and expression of concern for the Soldier’s welfare, the Soldier has remained insubordinate, been untruthful, and exercised poor judgment. In brief, there was no evidence of a psychiatric disease or defect which would exonerate the Soldier responsibility for those matters which are the basis for Command seeking administrative action. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD form 293. 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. 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: 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 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 suffering from untreated depression which turned into a sleep disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 24 April 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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. 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. It is documented that applicant was the victim of interpersonal violence (IPV) during active duty. Applicant was diagnosed post service by the VA with Major Depressive Disorder. Applicant contends suffering from a sleep disorder in a self-authored statement, and all of these BH conditions and experiences could mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found documentation that applicant was the victim of interpersonal violence (IPV) during active duty. Applicant contends suffering from a sleep disorder in a self-authored statement. However, the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder and sleep disorder existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. After applying liberal consideration, the Board's Medical Advisor opined that applicant’s experience of IPV mitigates the FTRs that were part of the applicant’s basis for separation. However, there is no evidence that any of the other misconduct that led to applicant’s separation was associated with IPV. (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, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions outweighed the unmitigated misconduct of violating the barrack’s SOP on multiple occasions by smoking and allowed an unauthorized person to live in the applicant’s room, lying regarding payment on the travel card, noncompliance with the plan of action in a counseling statement, violating multiple orders including no contact orders and orders to meet grooming standards, engaging in underage drinking, and being incapacitated for the proper performance of duties due to previous overindulgence in intoxication liquor or alcohol, all as basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board liberally considered the applicant’s experience of IPV and the incarceration of the applicant’s spouse following the incident. However, only part of the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by the IPV. The applicant’s continued insubordination, lying, and lack of good judgement continued and were numerous, warranted the proper and equitable discharge as a pattern of misconduct. (2) The applicant contends suffering from untreated depression which turned into a sleep disorder. The Board liberally considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of a sleep disorder, however the Board determined that the weight of the evidence does not support that conclusion. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. While there is evidence of post-service diagnosis of MDD by the VA, there is no evidence that this condition, or its symptoms existed during service. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined that the applicant’s numerous acts of non-mitigated, purposeful misconduct, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. By violating the barrack’s SOP on multiple occasions by smoking and allowed an unauthorized person to live in the applicant’s room, lying regarding payment on the travel card, noncompliance with the plan of action in a counseling statement, violating multiple orders including no contact orders and orders to meet grooming standards, engaging in underage drinking, and being incapacitated for the proper performance of duties due to previous overindulgence in intoxication liquor or alcohol, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (4) 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. 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, the discharge was both proper and equitable, and the applicant’s IPV experience and BH conditions did not mitigate the offenses of violating the barrack’s SOP on multiple occasions by smoking and allowing an unauthorized person to live in the applicant’s room, lying regarding payment of a Government Travel Card, noncompliance with the plan of action in a counseling statement, violating multiple orders including no contact orders and orders to meet grooming standards, engaging in underage drinking, and being incapacitated for the proper performance of duties due to previous overindulgence in intoxication liquor or alcohol. 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 AR20210003038 1