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 discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in 50 months of service. The applicant claims applicant was experiencing PTSD symptoms weeks before and the incident was over exaggerated and requested an appeal. The applicant had extra duty and had to work with the same people who made the complaint. The applicant claims not being seen after leaving the hospital in Germany and was subsequently kicked out the service. The applicant claims that applicant should not have been discharged after being punished with extra duty. The applicant that the punishment was harsh and the applicant should have been seen regarding applicant’s appeal request. The applicant was awarded the Good Conduct Medal. The applicant claims applicant was Soldier of the Month for a year and Noncommissioned Officer of the Month for three months. The applicant claims to have been removed from all classes to include Ranger school, belittled, and called racial slurs in the last days leading up to the discharge and this stuck with the applicant. The applicant requests a new start as it is difficult to explain a general (under honorable conditions) and an upgrade would allow better job opportunities, full college benefits, and a better chance at life. In a records review conducted on 21 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 August 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant assaulted Private First Class (PFC) K.W. with an unloaded firearm on 24 April 2008. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 July 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 August 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 May 2006 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 10 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 October 2004 – 7 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (12 March 2008 – 16 June 2008); Iraq (14 March 2006 – 21 November 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-4, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2007 – 30 April 2008, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 29 April 2008, reflects: The investigation officer (IO) found the applicant went into the FOB Gardez gym to speak with PFC K.W. about a previous argument. The applicant threatened to kill PFC K.W., locked in a magazine, charged, the weapon, turned the light switch off, and pointed the weapon at PFC K.W. The applicant and PFC K.W. were in an intimate relationship. The applicant was on anti- depressants at the time of the incident and had an altercation with the Medic NCOIC regarding certain medications the applicant desired. The IO recommended the applicant be given a FG Article 15, letters of reprimand, and separated under Chapter 14-12c; no longer carries a weapon; and, attends anger management classes, domestic violence classes, and undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Sworn Statement, dated 25 April 2008, by the applicant stated the applicant went to the Aid Station to receive medication for anti-depression medication and while waiting Sergeant First Class G. started yelling about not being a drug dealer and called the applicant a druggy. FG Article 15, dated 1 June 2008, at or near Afghanistan, assault PFC K.W., by pointing at an unloaded firearm at PFC K.W. (24 April 2008). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty for 45 days. The applicant submitted an appeal and the appeal was denied. The applicant provided a statement in rebuttal to the separation proceedings, undated, requesting a second chance while describing good service; maltreatment by superiors, to include racism and prejudice; mental health issues; the incident leading to the separation was due to immaturity; and various issues with the Article 15 proceedings. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for assault upon PFC K.W., with an unloaded weapon and debt counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 May 2008, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and could participate in the proceedings. A no-contact order should remain in place and be rigorously enforced to prevent communication with the victim of the alleged incident which led to the evaluation. The applicant was diagnosed with: Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified and the diagnosis met retention standards. If the allegations were substantiated, expeditious administrative discharge in accordance with Chapter 5-13, would be in the best interest of both the individual and the Army. Report of Medical History, dated 16 July 2008, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Short-term memory loss; Insomnia; Combat Stress; Depression, denies being suicidal or homicidal; June 2008, Germany and Afghanistan hospitalized at Behavioral Health on return from Afghanistan; and seen Chaplain and Behavioral Health. Report of Medical Examination, undated, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses and recommendations sections: History of Anger, Depression, Anxiety, Insomnia-Memory Loss and Servicemember to Behavioral Health – Walk- in today. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 5 May 2008, which reflects the applicant was mentally responsible, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE indicated a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified, and was considered by the separation authority. ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 6 March 2019, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 applicant requests a second decision on appeal. The AMHRR reflects the applicant was provided the opportunity to appeal the FG Article 15 and the appeal was denied. The applicant provided a statement to the separation authority during the separation proceedings, which included various issues with the Article 15 proceedings. The record does not provide any evidence to show the applicant was granted a second appeal to the Article 15 proceedings. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends being belittled and enduring racial discrimination by members of the unit. The AMHRR contains documents reflecting the applicant mentioned racism and maltreatment during the AR 15-16 investigation and in a rebuttal statement during the separation proceedings. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD and Personality Disorder that could potentially mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with PTSD and Personality Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that the applicant’s PTSD and Personality Disorder do not mitigate the assault that was the basis for applicant’s separation. The Board's Medical Advisor came to this conclusion because there are no natural sequelae between applicant’s PTSD or Personality Disorder and assault, and further on applicant’s own admission, the incident (assault) was a pre-meditated attempt to scare a dating partner who had been unfaithful. (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 unmitigated assault that was the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention during the proceedings. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered applicant’s PTSD but found that applicant’s PTSD did not mitigate the applicant’s assault that was the basis for applicant’s separation. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but relied on 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. (4) The applicant requested an appeal of applicant’s discharge before applicant was separated. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (5) The applicant contends being belittled and enduring racial discrimination by members of the unit. The AMHRR contains documents reflecting the applicant mentioned racism and maltreatment during the AR 15-16 investigation and in a rebuttal statement during the separation proceedings. The Board considered this contention but found the weight of the evidence, including within the AMHRR, did not support applicant’s contention, but rather supported the conclusion that there was no racism, maltreatment, arbitrary or capricious actions by the command throughout applicant’s discharge process. (6) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the length and quality of service to include combat service during the proceedings. (7) 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. (8) 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 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 PTSD and Personality Disorder do not mitigate the offense of assaulting PFC K.W. with an unloaded firearm, 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 AR20210003150 1