1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and SPD code change. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant while serving in Afghanistan, experienced significant combat which resulted in combat-related trauma. The applicant suffered a Grade Three Concussion after a fellow Soldier stepped on an IED. In the following months, the applicant began to feel different and struggled with anger issues. The applicant entered a period of depression, resulting in rash and poor decisions. The applicant went undiagnosed, turned to self-medication to cope with the ongoing battle with PTSD. The applicant's mental health spiraled and the applicant sought the comfort of K2 and alcohol. During a health welfare check, the applicant was found to be in possession of K2. The applicant confessed to the violation and went to ASAP. During the rehabilitative period, the applicant was involved in an alcohol related violation. It was discovered the applicant was drinking at a residence while under the age of 21. The applicant received an Article 15 for the drinking incident and thereafter, the applicant was recommended for administrative separation. After being discharged from the Army, the applicant was determined to become a contributing member of society. The applicant earned an Associate Degree in History and has started a family, including a two- year old daughter. In a records review conducted on 21 April 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is inequitable based on the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The Board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 13 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 21 February 2010, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully smoking Spike 99, a synthetic drug; on or about 6 December 2010, the applicant violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully being in possession of and using a synthetic drug known as K2; and on or about 18 March 2011, the applicant violated Kentucky revised statute, by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the legal age of 21. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 June 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 June 2011 / The separation authority approved the separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 September 2009 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 1 year, 9 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (10 June 2010 - 5 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, PH, NATOMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 8 April 2010, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully smoking Spike 99, a synthetic drug on or about 21 February 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $337, suspended; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Memorandum, Notification of Suspension/Revocation of Installation Vehicle Registration and PO Driving Privileges, dated 7 December 2010, reflects the applicant's driving privileges were suspended/revoked for a period of 12 months as a result of possession/use of a controlled substance. Military Police Report, dated 8 December 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Possession of Prohibited Substance (K2) (CAM REG 210-1) (Article #92, UCMJ) (On Post) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (CAM REG 210-1) (Article #92, UCMJ) (On Post). Military Police Report, dated 19 March 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Underage Drinking (Article #134, UCMJ) (On Post); Assault (Article #128, UCMJ) (On Post); and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (Article# 134 UCMJ) (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 21 April 2011, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully being in possession of and using a synthetic drug known as K2 on or about 6 December 2010 and wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the legal age of 21 on or about 18 March 2011. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 May 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. The applicant 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 applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 23 March 2018, reflects the applicant was admitted to the PTSD program in May 2015. The applicant met the strict DSM V criteria for PTSD. The applicant was receiving treatment with medication as well as psychotherapy. The applicant provided a copy of the ebenefits dashboard which reflects the applicant is receiving 100 percent for service connected PTSD and 10 percent for service connected TBI. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; brief in support of application; DD Form 214; Permanent Order #234-027; Permanent Orders #357-007; Purple Heart Certificate; self- authored statement; two Military Police Reports; Sworn Statement; Memorandum; DA Form 2627; Department of Defense Directive 1332.28; Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments; DA Form 3822; Department of Veterans Affairs Letter; ebenefits dashboard; GAO documents; American Addiction Centers Article; three third-party letters of support; email from Fullerton College; Fullerton College Paralegal Studies Requirements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has attended Fullerton College and earned an Associate Degree in history. The applicant is currently undertaking Paralegal Studies and desires to become a lawyer and a role model for the applicant's family and community. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. (6) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JKN" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and a SPD code change. 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 14-12a, AR 635-200 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Minor Infractions)," and the separation code is "JKN." 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 further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, is "JKN." The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and TBI by the VA. The applicant provided copy of the ebenefits dashboard which reflects the applicant is receiving 100 percent for service connected PTSD and 10 percent for service connected TBI. The applicant also provided a letter from VA reflecting the applicant was admitted into a PTSD program in May 2015. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 25 May 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE reflects a diagnosis: Axis I: Anxiety Disorder NOS. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant has attended Fullerton College and earned an Associate Degree in history. The applicant is currently undertaking Paralegal Studies and desires to become a lawyer and a role model for the applicant's family and community. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They recognize the applicant's work ethic during his time in the military and good conduct after leaving the Army. 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? N/A. Applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, so there is no medical mitigation required for a characterization upgrade. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the inequity of applicant's fully medically mitigated basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and TBI by the VA. The Board liberally considered this applicant's BH conditions when determining whether or not the applicant's discharge warranted any change. However, 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. (3) The applicant has earned an Associate Degree and is currently undertaking Paralegal Studies to become a lawyer and desires to be a role model for the applicant's family and community. 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 did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the inequity of applicant's fully medically mitigated basis for separation. (4) 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 the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is improper based on the applicant's circumstances surrounding the discharge. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts as described above, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210003111 1