1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, dealing with personal family issues, and was discriminated against by OIC at the time of discharge. The applicant states not being in a right state of mind as a result of undiagnosed PTSD and family issues. The applicant has learned from mistakes, and is now hindered by the current characterization in civilian life. In a records review conducted on 29 March 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: 6 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 16 August 2011, the applicant made a false official statement to SGT M.B.; on 17 August 2011, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from MAJ J.A.; on 18 August the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from MAJ J.A.; on 18 August 2011, the applicant missed movement to FOB Lagman, Afghanistan, by design; on 18 August 2011, the applicant did absent from place of duty, by taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, Afghanistan, and remained so absent until 19 August 2011; on 19 August 2011, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from MAJ J.A.; on 5 October 2011, the applicant left posted duty without being properly relieved; on 6 October 2011, the applicant failed to report for assigned extra duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 June 2009 / 3 years, 29 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 46Q10, Journalist / 2 years, 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 May 2011 - 15 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 September 2011, for being absent from unit from 18 August 2011 to 19 August 2011; missing movement for a space available flight to FOB Lagman on 18 August 2011; disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer on 17, 18 and 19 August 2011; and, with intent to deceive, made an official false statement to SGT M.B., on 16 August 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $734 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 25 October 2011, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI, these conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board, and the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a VA benefits sheet reflecting service connection for PTSD (also claimed as sleep disturbances) was granted with an evaluation of 30 percent, effective 3 April 2017. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA benefit verification letter; VA benefit decision document. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states mental health has improved, has been able to cope with maintaining a civilian life, has been employed for five years while working on a bachelor's degree, and strives to be a good role model for the applicant's two children. 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 suffering from undiagnosed, service-connected PTSD at the time of discharge, and was not in a right state of mind, and believes being hindered by the current characterization because according to the applicant, the characterization would be honorable had the foregoing been properly considered. The MSE reflected the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI, and the conditions were either not present, or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board, and the applicant could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant provided a VA benefits sheet reflecting a 30 percent evaluation for service connected PTSD. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. 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 states mental health has improved, has been able to cope with maintaining a civilian life, has been employed for five years while working on a bachelor's degree, and strives to be a good role model for the applicant's two children. 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 diagnosis of PTSD that may mitigate the applicant's basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. After reviewing the available information and in accordance liberal consideration, it is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor that applicant's PTSD only partially mitigates the misconduct - FTR and leaving post before being relieved may be part of the sequela of PTSD, but making a false statement, AWOL, missing movement, taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, and disobeying a lawful command are not mitigated by applicant's PTSD since these wrongful actions have no nexus with the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and were not out of avoidance behaviors, but done intentionally to be with the applicant's spouse. (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 applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the making a false statement, AWOL, missing movement, taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, and disobeying a lawful command, all of which were basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed, service-connected PTSD at the time of discharge, and was not in a right state of mind, and believes being hindered by the current characterization because according to the applicant, the characterization would be honorable had the foregoing been properly considered. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board, after applying liberal consideration, determined that the applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated misconduct, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with discrimination and the weight of the evidence did not support applicant's contention that there was any harassment, discrimination, arbitrary or capricious command actions throughout the applicant's discharge process. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board took family issues into consideration, but determined they did not outweigh the basis for discharge. (4) The applicant states mental health has improved, has been able to cope with maintaining a civilian life, has been employed for five years while working on a bachelor's degree, and strives to be a good role model for the applicant's two children. There is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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 discharge was proper and equitable. 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 applicant's PTSD did not mitigate making a false statement, AWOL, missing movement, taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, and disobeying a lawful command that were the basis for applicant's separation, and that 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, 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 AR20210003043 1