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 strongly believes applicant's overall service warrants an honorable discharge because in applicant's three and a half years of service, applicant never had any negative actions taken against applicant until applicant began abusing alcohol, after applicant's first deployment to Iraq. The applicant's team has ignored countless IG complaints for unjust treatment to Soldiers wherein applicant's First Sergeant had over three alcohol related actions in less than five months and remained in the Army. The applicant filed an IG complaint and was told something was done, but the applicant never saw or heard of anything. The applicant, only being an E-4, was kicked out of the service, placed on 45 days of extra duty and was reduced in rank. The applicant also has a remark on applicant's DD Form 214, which will prevent applicant from obtaining a federal employment. The applicant further details applicant's contentions in a memorandum in support of applicant receiving an honorable discharge during applicant's separation proceedings. 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 February 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF. Board accepted for review of application purposes that basis of separation most likely was DUIs, misconduct at the post gate, and failure to obey lawful order. (3) Recommended Characterization: The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 February 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / Some College / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 4 years, 10 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 23 January 2013 - 21 February 2014 / UNC (Break in Service) RA, 5 May 2015 - 9 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy, SWA / Iraq (14 January 2017 - 13 September 2017) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, ARCOM-CD, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, IRCM- CS g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - 1st Final, dated 14 May 2018, reflects the applicant was under investigation for Drunken or Impaired Operation of a Vehicle under Article 111, UCMJ and Dereliction of Duties - Willful/Neglect, under Article 92, UCMJ for incidents which occurred on 27 April 2018. FG Article 15, dated 1 August 2018, for, on two occasions, physically controlling a vehicle, a passenger car, while drunk (2 June and 27 April 2018). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $819 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 37 days; and, an oral reprimand. Memorandum for Record, subject: Disqualification of the Army Good Conduct Medal, dated 27 November 2018, reflects the applicant was disapproved for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period of Active Duty Service from 5 May 2015 to 5 May 2018 due infractions of Army Values. The applicant was provided the opportunity to rebut the decision and elected not to make a statement. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 17 October 2019, reflects: On 27 April 2018, the applicant's vehicle was inspected at Gate 2 Caserma Ederle in Vicenza, Italy and a female local national was found in the trunk of applicant's car. The applicant was apprehended by the Military Police and administered a breath test, resulting in a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.065 percent. On 2 June 2018, the applicant was stopped by local Italian police in Venice, Italy and the police noticed a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the applicant's breath. The applicant was apprehended and administered a breath test, resulting in 0.151 percent BAC; the commander issued a written order to the applicant to sign out when leaving the company area for more than 15 minutes as an administrative control. On 4 June 2018, the applicant left Caserma Ederle to go to Venice without signing out at the battalion staff duty desk. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 6 June 2018, for failure to comply with administrative restriction order. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 149; Memorandum from applicant in support of his discharge proceedings; U.S. Senator's Letter; Senator C.V.H.'s Privacy Release form; LTC R.S.'s Letter responding to Senator C.V.H. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 suffering from a mental health condition due to applicant's service in Iraq, which caused applicant to abuse alcohol. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends the chain of command ignored countless IG complaints for unjust treatment of Soldiers. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. 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 and found the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse, Adjustment Disorder, and PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate two DUIs, trying to sneak a female in applicant's trunk past gate guards, and disobeying/breaking a lawful order which most likely led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor determined the BH diagnoses of Alcohol abuse and Adjustment Disorder occurred during military service. The applicant's BH diagnosis of PTSD is 100% service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor opined, after reviewing the available information with liberal consideration, that although the applicant's PTSD mitigates the applicant's two DUIs, trying to sneak a female in applicant's trunk past gate guards, and disobeying/breaking a lawful order regarding leave procedures, are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD and therefore are not mitigated. (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 applicant's PTSD and other BH conditions do not outweigh the unmitigated misconduct of trying to sneak a female in applicant's trunk past gate guards, and disobeying/breaking a lawful order regarding leave procedures that were the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention, but found a narrative reason change is not supported by the evidence of record. The Board determined the applicant's narrative reason for the discharge is both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends suffering from a mental health condition due to applicant's service in Iraq, which caused applicant to abuse alcohol. The Board liberally considered this contention and the applicant's PTSD, ultimately the Board determined the applicant's alcohol abuse is mitigated by the PTSD, but the unmitigated basis for separation are not outweighed by the applicant's PTSD and other BH conditions. (3) 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 trying to sneak a female in applicant's truck past gate guards, and disobeying/breaking a lawful order, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends the chain of command ignored countless IG complaints for unjust treatment of Soldiers. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with command disputes. There is no evidence in the official records, nor provided by the applicant that such dispute assistance was pursued and therefore the Board determined that the applicant's contention does not overcome the presumption of government regularity throughout applicant's separation process. (5) 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 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant's Alcohol Abuse, Adjustment Disorder, and PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of trying to sneak a female in applicant's truck past gate guards, and disobeying/breaking a lawful order that were the proper and equitable basis for separation. 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 AR20210003222 1