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, exemplary service. The applicant believed eluding authorities was necessary because the applicant's daughter was left home unattended, and the subsequent Court Martial, incarceration, and discharge were punishment enough. The applicant states retention in the service would have occurred, but for unfair treatment from Command. The applicant expresses remorse for the incident leading to discharge, and requests access to GI Bill educational benefits in order to become a counselor for Soldiers. In a records review conducted on 14 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 November 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 October 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 29 April 2016 the applicant operated a passenger car in a reckless and unsafe manner, failing to stop at a steady red traffic signal, and driving ate (sic) a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 October 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: United States District Court violation notice reflects the applicant was charged with speeding. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 28 September 2016, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Article 111, UCMJ, the Specification: Near Fort Stewart, GA, on 29 April 2016, on West 6th Street, adjacent to building #2916, did operate a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, in a reckless manner by passing other vehicles in an unsafe manner, failing to stop at a steady red traffic signal, and driving at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The applicant was found guilty, consistent with the plea. Charge II: Article 134, UCMJ: Specification 1: At or near Fort Stewart, GA, on 29 April 2016, drive a motor vehicle while the privilege to do so was suspended, in violation of Georgia Code, Section 40-5-121, assimilated into federal law by U.S. Code Section 13. The applicant was found guilty, consistent with the plea. Specification 2: At or near Fort Stewart, GA, on 29 April 2016, wrongfully hinder a law enforcement officer by fleeing the scene of a traffic stop, in violation of Georgia Code, Section 16-10-24, assimilated into federal law by 18 U.S. Code Section 13. The applicant was found guilty, consistent with the plea. The sentence adjudged: Confinement for 15 days. Commander's Report, dated 1 November 2016, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, dated 10 February 2016, for a violation of Article 91, UCMJ; found guilty of the offense; and sentenced to a reduction in rank. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 11 October 2016, reflects the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis for reaction to severe stress. The MSE indicates the applicant can participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and met retention requirements. The applicant was cleared for chapter separation, however the MSE also notes the applicant was considerably overwhelmed and any additional stress may significantly deteriorate the applicant's mental and emotional capabilities. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; DD Form 458; DD Form 2329 and associated acknowledgements; DD Form 2707; DD Form 2707-1; DD Form 2708; DA Form 5111; Memorandum, Subject: Law Enforcement Report; excerpt from CID report; U.S. District Court violation notice; third party letters (four); and Facebook posts (two). 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 command wrongfully chose separation over retention. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of harassment, or arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's 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. Applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD related to MST 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 an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD related to MST. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, determined that applicant's PTSD does not mitigate the driving misconduct that was the basis of separation because there is no natural sequelae between adjustment disorder or PTSD and operating a car in a reckless manner. Applicant's in service Adjustment Disorder was not present when the misconduct that led to her separation occurred since the condition was diagnosed as a result of stress associated with the consequences of the misconduct that led to application discharge. (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 basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends command wrongfully chose separation over retention. The Board considered this contention but concluded that the weight of the evidence, including the AMHRR does not support a conclusion that there was any harassment, or arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (2) 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 operating a passenger car in a reckless and unsafe manner, failing to stop at a steady red traffic signal, and driving at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's Adjustment Disorder or PTSD related to MST did not mitigate, let alone outweigh the offenses of operating a passenger car in a reckless and unsafe manner, failing to stop at a steady red traffic signal, and driving at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit. 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 AR20210003047 1