1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant, through counsel, requests a narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served in the Army from 26 June 2002 to 7 April 2004, and was awarded multiple awards, decorations, and promotions. The applicant served a combat deployment in Kuwait and Iraq in support of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom, which exposed the applicant to horrific events and the applicant’s mental state began to decline. The applicant questioned the presence in the Army and an extensive examination of morality caused the applicant to apply for conscientious objector. The applicant was returned to the U.S. after the deployment and assigned a non-combat role. The applicant’s mental state spiraled downward, which contributed to the applicant failing to be on time for a few formations. On 10 February 2004, the applicant was informed the conscientious objector packet was lost and the applicant would return to combat duty, which was emotionally difficult because the applicant was deeply committed to the conscientious objector status. This resulted in a verbal altercation between the applicant and the First Sergeant (1SG), which stemmed directly from the applicant’s concerns regarding continued involvement in military violence. The applicant was discharged for misconduct and not for being a conscientious objector. Fifteen years after the discharge, the applicant continues to struggle with mental health issues. In July 2018, the applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Notwithstanding the negative impacts the service had on the applicant’s mental health, the applicant is a hard-working, ambitious, and community- and family-oriented; works 80 hours per week as a security officer, maintaining a clearance to carry a firearm; and pursuing new career opportunities in information technology, which require a security clearance. The discharge hinders the applicant’s options. Under DoD’s recent guidance regarding the applicant’s PTSD symptoms, the application should be reviewed with liberal consideration because the multiple mental health disorders actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; the disorders outweigh the discharge because the conduct was neither severe nor premeditated; and in at least four recent decisions, the Board upgraded discharge statuses on equitable grounds in situations, which strikingly resembled this case. Counsel further provided details of the applicant’s pre/post deployment service; changes from the applicant’s prior beliefs to a conscientious objector; circumstances surrounding the altercation with the First Sergeant; post service struggles with PTSD and MDD; and post-service accomplishments, supported by character statements. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied Declaration submitted with the application. In a records review conducted on 3 May 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 7 April 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 March 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disrespected a noncommissioned officer and failed to report on numerous occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 March 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 March 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority approved the discharge under AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 June 2002 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantryman / 1 year, 9 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 November 2002 – 11 August 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: PUC, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Post-Deployment Health Assessment, dated 1 August 2003, reflecting the applicant indicated a concern regarding Islamic religion and the effects of the war. The examining physician referred the applicant for counseling or Islamic counselor. Military Police Report, dated 11 February 2004, reflects the applicant was apprehended on post for: Failure to Obey General Order under Article 92, UCMJ; Disrespect to Other NCO/PO, under Article 91, UCMJ; Resisting Apprehension – Military, under Article 95, UCMJ; and, Provoking Speech/Gestures. The applicant provided a Sworn Statement, as a part of the investigation, in regards to the offenses and being a conscientious objector. FG Article 15, dated 18 March 2004, for being disrespectful in deportment toward 1SG R., by talking while 1SG R. was talking (12 February 2004) and willfully disobeying a lawful order from Staff Sergeant H., to “at ease” (12 February 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $586 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Record/Clinical Record, dated 12 February 2004, reflects the applicant was admitted following an altercation with members of the command. The applicant became a conscientious objector based on the experiences in Iraq and the situation escalated when the command ordered the applicant to report to Mortar Platoon and the military police were called. The applicant had been seen by Division Mental Health relating to depressed mood and prescribed medication. The Mental Status Evaluation reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and disturbance of mood and conduct; and, Personality Disorder not otherwise specified. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 February 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was hospitalized at the WAMC on 11 February 2004. Medical Record – Patient Release / Discharge Instructions, dated 13 February 2004, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder. The applicant provided mental health records, dated 2 July 2018, reflecting the applicant was referred to mental health by a VA claims representative and was assessed with PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; legal brief (31 pages) with exhibits; self-authored Declaration; post-service medical records; active duty medical records; enlistment documents; service documents; separations documents; marriage contract; four birth certificates; civilian employment documents/certifications; letter regarding Associate of Arts Degree; Gentlemen of Quality, Inc. letter; five third party character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends being hard-working, ambitious, and community- and family-oriented; maintaining employment, currently working 80 hours as a security officer; attaining a college degree; and, pursuing new career opportunities in information technology. 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. 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 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 a narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. 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 an 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 suffering from PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, which affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating the VA provided a medical assessment of the applicant and determined the applicant suffered from PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder and personality disorder. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 12 February 2004, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was hospitalized at the WAMC on 11 February 2004. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and personality disorder. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command lost the applicant’s conscientious objector request and attempted to force the applicant to go against religion. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Without additional information to corroborate this contention, the burden of proof was not met for the board to consider. The applicant contends the conduct which led to the discharge was neither severe nor premeditated. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the Board, in at least four recent decisions, upgraded discharge statuses on equitable grounds in situations, which strikingly resembled this case. Applicable regulations state each case is decided on its own merits and changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends being hard-working, ambitious, and community- and family-oriented; maintaining employment; attaining a college degree; and, pursuing new career opportunities in information technology. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization 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 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? No. 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 Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. Since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions, the Board determined that the narrative reason code accurately reflects the reasons warranting applicant’s honorable discharge. (2) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, which affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. In this case, the Board liberally considered the applicant’s PTSD/OBH diagnoses that warranted an upgrade to an HD, but determined that the Minor Infractions narrative and RE-3 code were both proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the command lost the applicant’s conscientious objector request and attempted to force the applicant to go against religion. The Board considered this contention, but voted that this contention did not overcome the presumption of Government regularity throughout the applicant’s discharge process. (4) The applicant contends the conduct which led to the discharge was neither severe nor premeditated. Since the applicant’s current narrative reason is Minor Infractions, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. (5) The applicant contends the Board, in at least four recent decisions, upgraded discharge statuses on equitable grounds in situations, which strikingly resembled this case. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the Board determined that since the applicant already received an upgraded discharge status to an HD, this contention does not warrant any change to the narrative reason or corresponding SPD code, nor the RE code. (6) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant’s total service, to include combat service, but ultimately determined that further relief was not warranted since the applicant’s current characterization of service is HD and this contention does not warrant any change to the narrative reason or corresponding SPD code, nor the RE code. (7) The applicant contends being hard-working, ambitious, and community- and family- oriented; maintaining employment; attaining a college degree; and, pursuing new career opportunities in information technology. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization 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 determined that with the applicant’s current HD with Minor Infractions discharge, further relief was not warranted. (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. 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) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210003207 1