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 an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant accepts full responsibility, and states having learned from this experience, has grown into a better person who now deserves an honorable discharge. The applicant claims to provide evidence of suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which may have affected judgment, and mitigated the applicant's conduct at the time of discharge. In a records review conducted on 12 April 2022, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable with a corresponding separation code to JND. 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b(5), 4-2b(8), and 4-2c(1) for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming of an officer, for receiving punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and adverse information filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: On 17 October 2014, the applicant wrongfully affixed a 75 percent discount sticker onto a motorcycle helmet at the Fort Campbell Army and Air Force Exchange Service and obtained a $28.49 discount to which the applicant was not entitled. The applicant then exited the store without paying the required price of the item and were detained by members of the store security detail. On 30 January 2015, the applicant received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for this offense. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 6 May 2015, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. (1) Legal Consultation Date: 6 May 2015 (2) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 12 August 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention and recommend that he be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (3) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 26 October 2015, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA's request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a. (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 27 April 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 28 / Master's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: CW2 / 255A0 2B, Information Services Technician / 12 years, 10 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 January 2003 - 3 September 2007 / HD RA, 4 September 2007 - 26 April 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (4 August 2012 - 4 May 2013); Iraq (3 December 2004 - 28 March 2005; 4 January 2007 - 19 February 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 27 April - 8 February 2013 / Best Qualified 9 February 2013 - 8 February 2014 / Best Qualified 29 February 2014 - 8 February 2015 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 17 October 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Shoplifting (Article 121, UCMJ) (on post). Fort Campbell Police Report, dated 17 October 2014, reflects the following offense description: Larceny of AAFES Property. GO Article 15, dated 20 January 2015, for stealing a motorcycle helmet, of a value less than $500, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, by affixing a 75 percent discount sticker onto the item and did thereby obtain a $28.49 discount which, the applicant was not entitled (17 October 2014). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $500 pay. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 12 August 2015, reflects the investigating officer found: the applicant did engage in substantiated derogatory activity which resulted in punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for this offense on 20 January 2015; the applicant's actions as described previously in 3(2) constitutes moral or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen, does not comport with the Army Values, is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 23 March 2015, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, met medical retention requirements, and further indicates the applicant was negative for both PTSD and TBI after screening. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a VA disability rating, which reflects a 70 percent service-connected PTSD, effective 5 September 2019. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; HCA congratulatory letter; Officer Evaluation Reports (three); Officer Record Brief; VA correspondence containing disability ratings. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states having gainful employment, taking care of family, and raising children to be solid citizens. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-24a, states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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 provided evidence of a post-service diagnosis of PTSD, which may have affected the applicant's judgment and mitigated the conduct leading to discharge. The applicant provided correspondence from the VA showing a 70 percent disability rating for service-connected PTSD to support this contention. The MSE reflected negative findings when the applicant was screened for PTSD, and indicated the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The applicant desires to rejoin the Army. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 a narrative reason "Unacceptable Conduct, separation code "JNC", and Reentry code "NA". Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends, after discharge, obtaining gainful employment, taking care of family, and raising children to be solid citizens. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found that 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 the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD that occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant has a BH diagnosis of PTSD, it is not a mitigating factor in applicant's misconduct (theft) as this behavior is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with applicant's PTSD. (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, and voted that applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant provided evidence of a post-service diagnosis of PTSD, which may have affected the applicant's judgment and mitigated the conduct leading to discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings, however the Board determined the applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the applicant's unmitigated theft charges. Ultimately the Board granted an upgrade due to applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. (2) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined an upgrade to Honorable was partly warranted because of this contention. (3) The applicant desires to rejoin the Army. As the applicant was a Warrant Officer, there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility. (4) The applicant contends, after discharge, obtaining gainful employment, taking care of family, and raising children to be solid citizens. 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 considered this contention but determined that the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service warrants an upgrade to Honorable. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable with a corresponding separation code to JND. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable when considering the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Miscellaneous/General Reasons, under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JND. (3) The RE code will not change, as there is no RE-code listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being an Officer, no upgrade actions are required for this item. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: JND 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 AR20210003048 1