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 suffered from PTSD at the time of applicant's separation. The applicant used alcohol to cope with applicant's PTSD, which resulted in a DUI conviction and poor physical performance and applicant was discharged for these two reasons. The applicant was arrested for DUI while on R&R from Iraq. After R&R, applicant returned to Iraq and failed multiple Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs) because applicant was depressed and ashamed due to being arrested. The applicant's Officer Evaluation Reports reflect applicant's performance decreased after the deployment to Iraq, due to the effects of PTSD. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA and is disabled as a result. In a records review conducted on 1 March 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 January 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a(3), 4-2a(10), 4-2c(5) for failure to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of applicant's grade when dealing with subordinate noncommissioned officers and applicant's duties as a battle captain, failing two consecutive APFTs, and receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for driving an automobile while impaired by alcohol, due to the following reasons: On 4 February 2008, the applicant engaged in an unprofessional verbal altercation with Staff Sergeant S. On 18 March 2008, the applicant failed to remain calm and maintain applicant's military bearing while speaking to Sergeant First Class K.S. On 21 March 2008, the applicant was counseled by Major J.S. regarding applicant's inability to perform applicant's duties adequately as a battle captain. On 11 June 2008 and 4 July 2008, the applicant failed record Army Physical Fitness Tests. On 24 October 2008, Brigadier General W.M. filed a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for driving an automobile while impaired by alcohol in the applicant's Official Military Personnel File. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 9 February 2009 (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 5 March 2009, the GOSCA recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 20 March 2009, the Ad Hoc Board considered the GOSCA's request to involuntarily separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a and derogatory information, paragraph 4-2c. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 March 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the elimination under AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4 (Misconduct Moral or Professional Dereliction). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 3 April 2007 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 33 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 35D All Source Intelligence / 11 years, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 17 December 1993 - 6 January 1994 / NIF (Break in Service) RA, 16 September 1994 - 2 February 1997 / HD USAR, 3 February 1997 - 26 November 2001 / NIF (Break in Service) USAR, 22 March 2005 - 28 September 2005) / NA AD, 14 June 2005 - 28 September 2005 / NIF (Concurrent Service) USAR APPT, 29 September 2005 - 2 April 2007 / NA AD, 17 October 2005 - 10 March 2006 / NIF (Concurrent Service) AD, 1 October 2006 - 28 March 2007 / NIF (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 June 2007 - 13 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM-2, AFEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFRM-MD, AFRM g. Performance Ratings: 29 March 2007 - 5 December 2007 / Best Qualified 15 March 2008 - 15 September 2008 / Do Not Promote 16 September 2008 - 24 April 2009 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 21 May 2008, reflects the applicant was arrested by a Fayetteville Police Officer on 21 May 2008, for driving while impaired after applicant was stopped for failing to maintain applicant's lane. The applicant was transported to the Cumberland County Detention Center where applicant refused the intoximeter test. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 9 June 2008, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired. After being pulled over for failing to maintain applicant's lane, the applicant refused to complete a lawfully requested breath analysis test on 21 May 2008. Two Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards, reflects on 11 June 2008, the applicant failed a record APFT by receiving "0" points in the two mile run event with a raw score of 24:55 (minutes: seconds) and a total score of 148 points. On 4 July 2008, the applicant failed a record APFT by receiving "59" points in the two mile run event with a raw score of 17:47 and a total score of 223 points. Letter of Concern, undated, reflects the applicant received the letter due to battalion executive officer's concern regarding the applicant's professionalism, judgment, and military bearing as a commissioned officer based on the applicant having an unprofessional verbal altercation with SSG S., using inappropriate language to the NCO and verbally reprimanding SSG S. in a public forum. Four Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct and poor duty performance. Human Resources Command memorandum, subject: Promotion Review Board, dated 1 June 2009, reflects the applicant was removed from the FY09 CPT Army Promotion Selection List, due to applicant's affirmed discharge for unacceptable conduct, without provisions for reinstatement in the event applicant returned to active duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided VA medical documents reflecting applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; VA medical documents; four OERs; and GOMOR with allied documents; Electronic Mail message; DA Message - DASA Approval; DA Message Amendment; discharge orders. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) is normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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 having suffered from PTSD, which affected applicant's behavior and caused the discharge; and, applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided VA medical documents indicating applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. 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, applicant's statements, and civilian provider documentation and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and PTSD that could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant's BH conditions of Adjustment Disorder and PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD and other behavioral health condition, these conditions only partially mitigate applicant's misconduct and unsatisfactory performance that were the basis for applicant's separation. While substance use behaviors and irritability are part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD, failing multiple APFTs, refusing to take a breathalyzer test, and inappropriate behavior to the NCO are not mitigated as there is no nexus between these types of misconduct and PTSD or other applicant behavioral health condition. (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 applicant's medical conditions did not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having suffered from PTSD, which affected applicant's behavior and caused the discharge; and, applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board liberally considered this contention but found the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends good service, to include 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 APFT failures, refusal to take breathalyzers in connection with multiple DUIs, inability to perform duties and an altercation with NCOs, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 Adjustment Disorder and PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of APFT failures, refusal to take breathalyzers in connection with multiple DUIs, inability to perform duties and an altercation with NCOs, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210003230 1