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 suffered an injury aggravated during Air Assault school, which led to experiencing daily sharp pains. The applicant had issues securing medication which would have dulled the pain, and therefore, had chronic issues with pain management. The applicant states suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety, compounded by the physical pain from the applicant's injuries which affected judgment, and ultimately the applicant's conduct leading to discharge. Having since learned how to deal with the physical and behavioral health issues the applicant was facing, the applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, and a change in the narrative reason for discharge. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 January 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 1 October 2014, the applicant was found liable for the loss of Military property in the amount of $3260.29; on 15 May 2014, the applicant failed to obey a General Regulation by showing up in a dirty and unserviceable uniform in violation of the standards in AR 670-1; on 5 June 2014, the applicant failed to obey a General Regulation by showing up in a dirty and unserviceable uniform in violation of the appearances in AR 670-1 and disobeyed a direct order; on 6 June 2014, the applicant was stopped by Oak Grove Police Department for speeding, 108 mph in a 55 mph zone; on 7 June 2014, the applicant failed to obey the orders of 1LT P. H., a commissioned officer, and on 7 August 2014, the applicant failed to report. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 11 February 2015 the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 April 2012 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantry / 3 years, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: 13 Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 12 March 2014, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 21 February 2014, and disobeying an NCO on 11 February 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $400 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty, and 14 days of restriction (suspended). Physical Profile reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: Lumbar disc disease. Report of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 19 March 2014, indicates the suspended punishments of forfeiture of $400 and 14 days of restriction, imposed on 12 March 2014, was vacated based on the applicant failing to report for extra duty on 16 and 17 March 2014. Memorandum, dated 29 September 2014, rendered by an investigating officer (IO), reported the applicant's equipment, valued at $3,260.29, was lost due to willful misconduct. The IO recommended the applicant be held financially liable for the missing equipment. Report of Medical History, dated 5 September 2014, indicates the applicant and examiner noted the applicant receiving behavioral health counseling twice in February 2014, and never went back because it was resolved. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 11 September 2014, indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, met medical retention standards, did not meet screening criteria for PTSD and TBI, declined behavioral health services, and was cleared for any administrative actions deemed necessary by command. Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 16 September 2014, Section II indicates the Board found the applicant physically unfit and recommended a rating of 30 percent and that the applicant's disposition be permanent disability retirement. The Board further found the disability disposition is not based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Health Summary provided by the applicant indicates a past medical diagnosis of Depression per PCMHI psychologist, and a present diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; character letter; VA letter; VA Health Summary; Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary and Proceedings; Report of Medical Assessment; Report of Medical History; Physical Profile; SJA Memorandum; VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Board Claim; MSE; traffic citation; separation documents; and ERB. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states working on managing pain in a healthy manner, maintaining gainful employment, maintaining positive relationships including the applicant's significant other and new child, and is working on going back to college. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly 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 suffering from Major Depression, anxiety, undiagnosed PTSD, along with the applicant's physical disabilities and medication use, which affected the applicant's judgment mitigating conduct leading to discharge. VA Health Summary provided by the applicant indicates a past medical diagnosis of Depression per PCMHI psychologist, and a present diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent. The MSE indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, met medical retention standards, did not meet screening criteria for PTSD and TBI, declined behavioral health services, and was cleared for any administrative actions deemed necessary by command. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The separation authority considered the applicant's medical conditions and acts of misconduct, and found the applicant's conditions were not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination, the circumstances in the applicant's case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings should continue. The applicant contends command repeatedly identified the applicant's actions as a pattern of misconduct, rather than as deteriorating symptoms which should have raised red flags for mental and behavioral health concerns, necessitating intervention. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance from command prior to the conduct leading to discharge, or of any arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 states working on managing pain in a healthy manner, maintaining gainful employment, maintaining positive relationships including the applicant's significant other and new child, and is working on going back to college. 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 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 that applicant had Major depression, PTSD, and anxiety that may mitigate the basis for applicant's separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, found that while the applicant asserts that applicant had Major depression, PTSD, and anxiety during military service, however, the Board's Medical Advisor found the weight of the evidence did not support that any of these applicant conditions existed during applicant's military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, even after applying liberal consideration, determined that the VA diagnosed and applicant asserted applicant BH conditions do not mitigate the loss of Military property through willful misconduct, failure to obey a regulation and failure to obey an order by showing up in a dirty and unserviceable uniform, disobeying a direct orders; speeding 108 mph in a 55 mph zone that were the basis for applicant's separation. Although post service, applicant has been diagnosed by the VA with Major Depressive Disorder, and the applicant self-asserted PTSD and Anxiety, these BH conditions do not mitigate applicant's basis for separation because the loss of Military property through willful misconduct, failure to obey a regulation and failure to obey an order by showing up in a dirty and unserviceable uniform, disobeying direct orders; speeding 108 mph in a 55 mph zone are not part of the sequela of symptoms of PTSD, Anxiety or Major Depression. (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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention during the proceedings but voted not to change the narrative reason. (2) The applicant contends suffering from Major Depression, anxiety, undiagnosed PTSD, along with the applicant's physical disabilities and medication use, which affected the applicant's judgment mitigating conduct leading to discharge. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, agreed with the Board's Medical Advisor, and found applicant's asserted BH conditions do not mitigate applicant's basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board considered this contention but determined applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable, in part relying on Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, that stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. (4) The applicant contends the command repeatedly identified the applicant's actions as a pattern of misconduct, rather than as deteriorating symptoms which should have raised red flags for mental and behavioral health concerns, necessitating intervention. The Board determined that the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant sought assistance from command prior to the conduct leading to discharge, or of any arbitrary or capricious actions by the command throughout the applicant's discharge process. (5) The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board reviewed the applicant's AMHRR and submitted documents and found the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment, or was denied assistance by applicant's command. (6) The applicant states working on managing pain in a healthy manner, maintaining gainful employment, maintaining positive relationships including the applicant's significant other and new child, and is working on going back to college. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or 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 post-service accomplishments do not warrant any change to the applicants discharge. 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 voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's asserted Major depression, PTSD, and Anxiety did not mitigate the applicant's basis for separation offenses of the loss of Military property in the amount of $3260.29; failure to obey the standards AR 670-1 by showing up in a dirty an unserviceable uniform (thrice) and disobeying a direct order; speeding 108 mph in a 55 mph zone; failure to obey the orders of a commissioned officer, and failure to report, 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 AR20210003054 1