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, poor decision making was affected by PTSD. The applicant includes a service connected rating for PTSD due to combat. The applicant had the condition when the applicant returned from combat in 2008, which led to the misconduct and the discharge. The applicant is unable to secure a job due to the discharge, causing continual stress. The applicant requests the Board review the character references and NCO Evaluation Reports from the administrative separation board. In a records review conducted on 17 March 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 May 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 August 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant on 10 March 2016, stole a pressure washer and bicycle pump, of a value of $321.97, the properly of Walmart, Sparta, WI. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 August 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 2 February 2017, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 28 March 2017, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 March 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 May 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Some College / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 91X48, Maintenance Supervisor / 13 years, 8 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 24 June 2003 – 29 November 2004 / HD IADT, 23 September 2003 – 3 March 2004 / UNC (Concurrent Service) RA, 30 November 2004 – 26 March 2008 / HD USAR, 27 March 2008 – 11 May 2011 / NA AD AGR, 12 May 2008 – 11 May 2011 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, Puerto Rico, SWA / Iraq (26 September 2006 – 10 December 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, MUC, KDSM, GWOTSM, ARCAM, ICM-2BSS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2 / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the AGCM-4, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 19 August 2010 – 29 June 2015 / Among the Best 30 June 2015 – 31 May 2016 / Did Not Meet Standard 1 June 2016 – 31 May 2017 / Met Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Sparta Police Department Incident Report, dated 13 March 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for larceny of a pressure washer and two bicycle pumps of a value of $327.97 from Wal-Mart (10 March 2016). The applicant admitted to the offense. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 May 2016, reflects the applicant was observed stealing a pressure washer and bicycle pump from a Wal-Mart in Sparta, WI. The items the applicant stole had a value of $321.97. The applicant intentionally wore Army uniform incorrectly by failing to have the rank and nametape on the fleece jacket, to help avoid identification. The applicant, to aid in deception, executed a ruse to draw the Wal-Mart greeter away from the post so that the applicant could walk out of the store with the stolen items without being stopped. NCO Evaluation Report from 30 June 2015 through 31 May 2016, the rater commented the applicant failed to display integrity in actions; multiple infractions of Army regulations and policies resulted in removal from leadership position; set a poor example for junior Soldiers when the applicant was arrested for shoplifting while on duty and in uniform; and, Soldier failed to represent the Army and the unit in a positive light and the applicant’s integrity was questionable. The senior rater recommended removal from the AGR program. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 3 December 2018, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent combined service-connected disabled. The VA eBenefits Website page, dated 3 December 2018, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for other specified trauma and stressor disorder (claimed as Post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD) related to PTSD-Combat. Dr. S.W., VA New England Healthcare System, Licensed Staff Psychologist, letter, dated 30 September 2021, reflecting the applicant attended appointments in the Center for Returning Veterans between February 2020 and August 2021, and has recently re-initiated mental health care. The applicant is 50 percent service-connected for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293; VA letter; VA eBenefits Website Page – Disabilities; Dr. S.W. letter; ARBA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. (7) 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a 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 suffering from PTSD which affected behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant provided VA documents indicating a 50 percent rated disability for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, related to PTSD-Combat. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records and determined the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD that may mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor arrived at this finding based upon the Applicant being diagnosed and service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying the Liberal Consideration guidance, the Agency BH Advisor opines that applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the shoplifting that was the basis for applicant’s separation because there was no association between applicant’s PTSD and the shoplifting. PTSD does not impact one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right, and therefore, in this case did not affect applicant’s unmitigated, conscious decision to shoplift. (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, including PTSD, outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD which affected behavior and led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered applicant's combat-related PTSD but determined that there is no association between the applicant’s PTSD and applicant’s shoplifting, which led to applicant’s separation. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct of theft and other misconduct meant to assist applicant in the execution of the crime, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) 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. c. The Board determined 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, the applicant’s PTSD did not mitigate applicant’s theft offense that was the basis for 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, 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 AR20210003130 1