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, was he diagnosed with PTSD, when he returned from Iraq. The applicant believes, had he not been harassed or had not been transferred to a different shift, he would not ever have been in trouble. The applicant states one day he had enough and told one of the sergeants what he thought. The applicant admits he should not have done it and he let things get the best of him. The applicant states, he was having problems back home and could not connect with his daughter or get ahold of her mom and it was eating him up. The applicant states he instantly received an Article 15, which was the end for the applicant. The applicant’s captain did not want problems one week before their tour was over, and the discharge paper work was begun. The applicant states, he had six months left to complete six years of service. The Army was his life which he had put his blood sweat and tears into and when he was discharged it tore him apart. The applicant furthers details his contentions in the application and a self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 18 January 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 February 2009 / NIF (OAD) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 5 years, 5 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 29 September 2004 – 5 March 2010 / GD (Concurrent Service) IET, 14 June 2006 – 16 August 2006 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (17 April 2009 – 30 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, AFRMM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action form, dated 17 January 2010, reflects the applicant was reduced in grade to E-3. The applicant was administratively reduced for patterns of misconduct with an effective date of 17 January 2010. Orders 039-0033, dated 8 February 2010, reflects the applicant was ordered the transition point for transition processing. After processing, the applicant was discharged with a date of discharge of: 5 March 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 28 September 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; Privacy Release forms; VA Rating Decision; Summary of Benefits letter; self-authored statement; two third party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided evidence he attends college. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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: 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’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his 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 was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant provided a copy of his VA Rating Decision, which reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent service-connected for PTSD. The applicant contends family issues and harassment from NCOs affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant did provide a third-party letter which supported the contention the applicant was harassed and the matter was reported, but no action was taken. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good performance in the Army or post-service. 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. AHLTA contains a potentially mitigating BH diagnosis of Acute Reaction to stress. JLV contains additional BH diagnoses of ADHD, PTSD, and Depression that may also mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. AHLTA contains an in-service BH diagnosis of Acute Reaction to stress. JLV contains additional service-connected BH diagnoses of ADHD, PTSD, and Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor determined after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, that while the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD there is insufficient evidence to determine mitigation without knowing the misconduct that formed the basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB concurred with the Board’s Medical Advisor that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation because the basis of separation is unknown and therefore the board is unable to weigh the diagnosis against any basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason should be changed. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. (2) The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The Board reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found Acute Reaction to stress, ADHD, PTSD, and Depression, however, the basis of separation is unknown and therefore the Board was unable to weigh the applicant’s BH conditions against applicant’s separating offenses. 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. (3) The applicant contends family issues and harassment from NCOs affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered applicant’s contention but was unable to make a determination without knowing the applicant’s basis for separation. 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. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve. However, the Board considered applicant’s contention but was unable to make a determination without knowing the applicant’s basis for separation. 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. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the Board could not find sufficient evidence to support applicant’s BH diagnoses of Acute Reaction to stress, ADHD, PTSD, and Depression outweighed the applicant’s basis for separation. Based on the evidence before the Board, the Board could not ascertain whether the separating misconduct was mitigated either by circumstances, a medical condition or quality of service. The applicant is responsible for, but failed to satisfy the burden of proof, by providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. Based on the evidence before the Board, the Board determined 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 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 AR20210003229 1