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's military service was plagued by poor decision making, immaturity, and severe substance abuse. The applicant states the misconduct during service was not a reflection of the applicant's intentions, potential, motivation, work ethic, or attitude towards the military. The applicant states the conduct was neither criminal nor malicious, and ultimately was avoidable if the applicant had sought help for substance abuse issues. The applicant claims that applicant was hesitant to seek help due to the applicant's desire to become a Drill Sergeant, and the belief applicant would be unable to do so with documented behavioral health issues. The applicant states making progress with substance abuse issues, and now requests an upgrade to receive GI Bill education benefits, and a change in RE code in order to reenlist and become an officer. In a records review conducted on 26 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: 9 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 January 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to go to the applicant's place of duty on 13 July 2016, 3 November 2016, and 6 March 2017; the applicant was disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer on 3 March 2017 and 6 March 2017; and the applicant failed to obey a lawful order on 30 January 2017, 6 March 2017 and 13 July 2017. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 February 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68X10, Behavioral Health Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NSDM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Seventeen Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. CG Article 15, dated 29 March 2017, for: In violation of Article 86: Without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, on 13 July 2016; and, on 6 March 2017, without authority, went from appointed place of duty. In violation of Article 92, UCMJ, having received a lawful order from SSG F.,M. to turn in two delinquent training certificates, did disobey on 3 March 2017; having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SGT A., B. to perform preventive maintenance checks and services on a LMTV, did on 6 March 2017, fail to obey the same by leaving the applicant's place of duty without finishing the mission; having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SPC T., L., to bring a water source for Physical Training, did on 30 January 2017, fail to obey the same by showing up to Physical Training formation without a water source; on 30 January 2017, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 3-2a (2)(b), Army Regulation 670-1: Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform and Insignia, dated 10 April 2015, by failing to remain clean shaven while on duty; and, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SPC T., L., to show up at least 15 minutes before any formation, did on 13 July 2016, fail to obey the same by not showing to 0630 Physical Training formation. In violation of Article 91, UCMJ, the applicant on 6 March 2017 was disrespectful in language and deportment toward SSG F. M. a noncommissioned officer, by raising the applicant's voice, being rude and moving the applicant's hands while in parade rest. The punishment imposed was reduction to Private First Class (E3) (suspended), forfeiture of $467 pay; extra duty for 14 days (suspended); restriction to the limits of company area, dining/ medical facility, and place of worship for 14 days (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 1 November 2017, the examining medical physician noted in the following diagnoses: Insomnia; Anxiety, ADHD; and ADHD Adjustment Disorder. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 12 October 2017, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD, Depression, TBI, Substance misuse, and Sexual Trauma. The applicant was diagnosed with: Other problems related to employment; Other specified problems related to psychosocial circumstances. The applicant, from a behavioral health perspective, 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. The MSE further indicated there was no indication of a behavioral health disorder interfering with the applicant's ability to perform all assigned military duties without limitations. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DAMIS Patient Progress Report; and character letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states having gainful employment, and provided a substance abuse program progress report reflecting the applicant has made satisfactory progress. 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. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 length of the applicant's military service was plagued by severe substance abuse issues, which affected the applicant's judgment and mitigated conduct leading to discharge. The MSE reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE further indicated there was no indication of a behavioral health disorder interfering with the applicant's ability to perform all assigned military duties without limitations. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant claims the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant's good character while in the Army. The applicant states having gainful employment post discharge, and provided a substance abuse program progress report reflecting the applicant has made satisfactory progress. 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 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 applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and ADHD that could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant has in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder (AD), and ADHD. The applicant is service connected 30% for Neurosis, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that none of applicant's BH conditions, including AD, ADHD and GAD mitigate applicant's misconduct, specifically FTR, disrespecting a non-commissioned officer and failing to obey a direct order because these acts of misconduct are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with any of applicant's BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, that applicant's BH conditions do not outweigh the unmitigated FTR, disrespecting a non-commissioned officer and failing to obey a direct order acts of misconduct, that were the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the length of the applicant's military service was plagued by severe substance abuse issues, which affected the applicant's judgment and mitigated conduct leading to discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings and determined the applicants unmitigated FTR, disrespecting a non-commissioned officer and failing to obey a direct order are not outweighed by the applicant's AD, ADHD and GAD. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention but determined that an RE-3 is the proper and equitable discharge code for the applicant. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. 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. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner and determining the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant claims the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. The Board determined the applicant's discharge is appropriate as FTR, disrespecting a non-commissioned officer and failing to obey a direct order are not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. (5) 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, 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. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant states having gainful employment post discharge, and provided a substance abuse program progress report reflecting the applicant has made satisfactory progress. 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 applicant's post-service achievements, but determined that the discharge is proper and equitable based on the applicant's misconduct. 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant's AD, GAD, and ADHD did not outweigh the unmitigated offenses of FTR, disrespecting a non- commissioned officer and failing to obey a direct order, which are the basis of applicant's separation, 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, 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 AR20210003062 1