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 had been diagnosed with PTSD by a family doctor in April 2008, shortly after returning from a 12-month deployment in Iraq. The applicant started VA treatment for applicant's PTSD and is 100 percent disabled due to PTSD. In a records review conducted on 22 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: Civil Conviction / AR 135-178, Chapter 12-2 / NA / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 August 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on 1 January 2009, the applicant Pled Guilty to Domestic/Criminal Violence against applicant's spouse in Spartanburg, SC Magistrate office. This behavior is not in keeping with highest standards of the United States Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant's election of rights, dated 12 August 2009, reflects applicant exercised applicant's right to a hearing before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 December 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D10, D3, Calvary Scout / 13 years, 8 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 January 1997 - 14 December 1999 / HD USAR, 15 December 1999 - 1 December 2005 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: ASR, AFRMMD, ICM, AGCM, OSR, CAB, AAM-2 g. Performance Ratings: 15 August 2008 - 31 May 2009 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 10-244-00020 dated 1 September 2018, reflects a discharge date of 6 September 2010, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 149; Durable and Health Care Powers of Attorney; marriage certificate; discharge orders; CAB order; Notification memo; Applicant's acknowledgement/election of rights memo. 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. (3) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 11, (previously Chapter 12), 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 11-1e, prescribes separation for civil conviction (see paragraph 12-2 below). (6) Paragraph 11-2, prescribes a Soldier may be discharged for misconduct when it is determined under the guidance set forth in chapter 2, section I, that the Soldier is unqualified for further military service by reason of a civil conviction. (7) Paragraph 11-8, states an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be 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 AMHRR is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army Reserve. There is evidence that applicant Pled Guilty to Domestic/Criminal Violence against applicant's spouse in Spartanburg, SC Magistrate office, and this guiity plea likely was the basis for applicant's separation. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 10-244-00020, dated 1 September 2010. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by applicant's family doctor and is 100 percent disabled due to PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void a mental status evaluation. The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 1 July 2019, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's discharge orders do not reflect the reentry code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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, and applicant submissions and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence against applicant's spouse which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant had PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, opined that although the applicant has a BH diagnoses of PTSD and this condition does not mitigate applicant's Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence against applicant's spouse, as this behavior is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. (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 available evidence supports a conclusion that applicant's medical conditions, including PTSD, do not outweigh the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by applicant's family doctor and is 100 percent disabled due to PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately the Board determined the applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the applicant's Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence against applicant's spouse as the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends the RE code should be changed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but this contention is outside of the Board's scope because the applicant was in the Army Reserves, and there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 PTSD and Persistent Mood Disorder did not excuse or mitigate, let alone outweigh the offense of Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence against applicant's spouse that was the basis for applicant's 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 AR20210003233 1