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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant has suffered under the weight of a less-than-honorable discharge because of traumatic events the applicant experienced during active duty. Therefore, the applicant requests the ADRB review discharge for equity and, thereafter make the following corrections to the applicant’s record and cause those corrections to be reflected on the DD Form 214. Upgrade the character of service to honorable and change separation code, and narrative reason. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA and has two documented TBls in the military medical record. The applicant’s PTSD and TBIs should outweigh the discharge. Prior to the applicant’s military service and deployment to Iraq, the applicant did not suffer from any major behavioral issues. During service, the applicant consistently received high NCO evaluation reports and performed duties honorably during tours in Iraq, Djibouti, Niger, Somalia, and Estonia. The applicant’s counsel claims, However, PTSD inherently affects one’s behavior and choices, causing veterans to think and behave differently than otherwise expected. Except for the TBIs and PTSD resulting in one-time misconduct, the applicant’s service was meritorious and honorable to the United States of America and the Army. The applicant’s TBI and PTSD diagnoses and symptoms outweigh the discharge. In a records review conducted on 18 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 June 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, Mrs. V., by unlawfully throwing down, and putting hands around throat, mouth and restricting ability to breathe. On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, Mrs. V., by unlawfully striking in the face with the back of hand, causing the spouse to fall on the ground, which resulted in bleeding. On or about 24 July 2016, the applicant physically assaulted spouse, Mrs. V., by unlawfully striking multiple times in the side and back of the head. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 June 2017 Administrative Separation Board: On 20 June 2017, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2015 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / 2 years’ college / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 18D3P, Special Forces Medical Sergeant / 11 years, 7 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: AF, Period of Enlistment / NIF IADT, 21 June 2005 – 28 February 2006 / HD AFANG, 1 March 2006 – 15 July 2007 / NIF RA, 16 July 2007 – 21 May 2012 / HD RA, 22 May 2012 – 26 May 2014 / HD RA, 27 May 2014 – 15 October 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Djibouti , Estonia , Niger , Somalia / SWA Iraq, (26 April 2008 – 15 July 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-5, AAM-9, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR-2, USAFTR, CAB, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 21 July 2015 – 31 December 2015 / Among the Best 28 July 2016 – 10 December 2016 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Wisconsin Circuit Court documents, dated 27 July 2016, reflect three counts of charges: Count 1, Strangulation and Suffocation, Domestic Abuse; Count 2, Misdemeanor Battery, Domestic Abuse; and Count 3, Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 16 February 2017, reflects on 24 July 2016, the applicant hit spouse after a verbal argument at the spouse’s family home in Merrillan, Wisconsin. During this attack, the applicant strangled the spouse and attempted to suffocate. Further, the applicant hit the spouse multiple times in the face and head causing the spouse to fall to the ground bleeding from the lip and nose. The applicant did all of this in the driveway and street in front of the in-law’s home, as her parents watched in horror. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 May 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. However, the applicant is pending WRC Neurology referral due to reported TBI history. Impulsivity was assessed normal during this session, however taking in account past behaviors impulsivity may be assessed as higher than socially acceptable. The applicant provided a VA Rating Decision dated 7 November 2018, reflects a 30 percent rating for PTSD with adjustment disorder, anxiety and mid neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; ERB; three AGCM Orders; Rated Disabilities; Domestic Violence Course Certificate; two Memorandum for Trail Attorney; seven Letters of support; Domestic Violence Treatment Discharge Summary; Memorandum for Family Advocacy Program; 24 Hour Anger Management Training Certificate; VA Compensation letter; VA rating Decision dated 7 November 2018; Medical records; Associate in Applied Science Certificate; Fayetteville Technical Community Transcript; Pikes Peak College Transcript Certificate of Achievement for NASA community College Aerospace Scholars; DD Form 293, dated 23 April 2020; Legal brief and attached Exhibits A through S. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently attending both University of Colorado, Colorado Springs as well as Pikes Peak Community College. The applicant is studying mechanical engineering with a 3.4 GPA. The applicant serves the community as an entrepreneur and started a business making custom wood items. 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). 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: 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 the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the 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 SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The AMHRR shows the applicant’s Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 12 May 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. However, the applicant is pending WRC Neurology referral due to reported TBI history. Impulsivity was assessed normal during this session, however taking in account past behaviors impulsivity may be assessed as higher than socially acceptable. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. Also, the applicant provided a VA Rating Decision, dated 7 November 2018, reflects a 30 percent rating for PTSD with adjustment disorder, anxiety and mid neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 good service, including multiple combat tours. The applicant contends being the owner of a business and going to school. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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. 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 submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, which could potentially mitigate a discharge. The applicant asserts both PTSD and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found PTSD did exist during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that the applicant’s PTSD does not excuse or mitigate applicant’s basis of separation misconduct. Applicant’s actions of domestic violence, including several blows to applicant’s spouse’s head and face, as well as choking spouse, are not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD, TBI or most other behavioral health conditions and, as such, are not mitigated by these conditions under Liberal Consideration. (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 did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical condition of PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – domestic violence, including several blows to applicant’s spouse’s head and face, as well as choking spouse. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board voted and determined the applicant’s narrative reason is appropriate due to the severity of the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the separation code (SPD) should be changed. It should be noted that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty, and administratively linked to the reason for separation. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The Board acknowledges the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD, however, the Board determined the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct of domestic violence, including several blows to applicant’s spouse’s head and face, as well as choking spouse and also applicant’s asserted TBI does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct. Therefore, the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of an isolated incident, however the Board determined that there is no evidence and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (5) The applicant contends good service, including multiple combat tours. 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 acts of domestic violence, including several blows to applicant’s spouse’s head and face, as well as choking spouse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (6) The applicant contends being the owner of a business and going to school. 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 the discharge was proper and equitable. 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 PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of domestic violence, including several blows to applicant’s spouse’s head and face, as well as choking spouse. The applicant’s service did not meet the definition of Honorable service contained in paragraph 7 of this document. 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 AR20210003234 1