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, applicant believes a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is not appropriate because applicant's service warrants an honorable. The applicant made some bad choices near the end of applicant's service by seeking to escape through drugs and alcohol to bury the PTSD which occurred from applicant's experiences in the Army. The applicant was never offered any treatment or mental health guidance from applicant's leadership. The behavior which caused applicant's discharge took place while applicant was on a six-month extension after being deployed to a combat zone as a medic. Around 2006 or 2007, the applicant went to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeking help for PTSD and was not provided the help applicant needed. The applicant sought different ways to combat being an alcoholic. The applicant began working at a gym and through the people the applicant met there, began to work out and not look to alcohol for relief. Since the applicant's time in the Army, applicant has grown as a person and is learning to deal with the tumultuous times and events applicant endured. The applicant works hard at it every day but it is still a challenge. The applicant and others applicant consulted believes applicant's service was honorable. The applicant has always respected and followed the Army's core values, both in applicant's service and as a civilian. The applicant made a poor choice as a young adult to combat applicant's mental and emotional pain. The applicant is proud to have served applicant's country and next to other brave men and women from the country and the allied nations. The applicant is serving applicant's fellow citizens as a paramedic and will continue to serve for the rest of applicant's life. In a records review conducted on 1 February 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 November 2000 / 4 years / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by six months on 1 March 2002, giving the applicant a new ETS of: 1 May 2005. The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract and/or extension of enlistment retaining the applicant on active duty after 1 May 2005. DD Form 214 reflects the applicant was retained for 93 days as essential to national security. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91W10, Health Care Specialist / 4 years / 6 months / 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait and Iraq (30 November 2003 - 25 March 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CMB, NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Installation Management Agency, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 112-0001, dated 12 April 2005, reflecting the applicant was reassigned to the Army Transition Point with a discharge date of 2 May 2005. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Report of Medical History, dated 17 April 2004, the applicant indicated he had nervous trouble, depression or excessive worry, and applicant used illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs, and applicant was upset and depressed sometimes. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: "As above." The Report of Medical Examination, dated 17 April 2004, cleared the applicant for separation. VA disability rating decision, dated 27 February 2019, medical documents reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for unspecified anxiety disorder (claimed as post- traumatic stress disorder). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; third-party statement; VA disability rating decision with medical documents; DD Form 214; Soldier Separation Page; Report of Medical Assessment; Report of Medical History; Report of Medical Examination. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states applicant is serving applicant's fellow citizens as a paramedic and will continue to serve for the rest of applicant's life. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (5) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (6) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to applicant's discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends applicant suffered from PTSD, which affected applicant's behavior and ultimately led to applicant's discharge. The AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided a Report of Medical History reflecting applicant reported to the examining physician applicant experienced nervous trouble, depression or excessive worry and applicant used illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs; the applicant was cleared for separation. The applicant provided VA disability rating decision reflecting applicant was rated 50 percent disability for unspecified anxiety disorder (claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder). The AMHRR is void of a mental status examination. The applicant contends the leadership never offered applicant any treatment or mental health guidance. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends applicant is serving applicant's fellow citizens as a paramedic and will continue to serve for the rest of applicant's life. 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. 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, along with applicant's contentions and found the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder, and the applicant contends PTSD, both of which could potentially mitigate many forms of misconduct that lead to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found applicant had Anxiety Disorder during military service but found the evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant had PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board Medical Advisor could not opine, even with liberal consideration of all the evidence, whether or not the applicant's service related Anxiety Disorder, or any other medical condition is a mitigating factor for the applicant's basis for separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends applicant suffered from PTSD, which affected applicant's behavior and ultimately led to applicant's discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and the applicant's contention of PTSD, however the Board determined that the evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends the leadership never offered the applicant any treatment or mental health guidance. The Board considered this contention but determined that the evidence did not overcome the government presumption of regularity regarding applicant's command throughout the separation process. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings, however the Board determined that the evidence did not support any change to the applicant's discharge. (4) The applicant contends applicant is serving fellow citizens as a paramedic and will continue to serve for the rest of applicant's life. 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, without knowing the actual basis for applicant's separation, the Board was unable to determine whether or not these post service factors warrant any change to the applicant's discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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) Without knowing the actual basis of separation, the Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service. The Board determined that the available evidence supported a conclusion that 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 AR20210003206 1