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 Honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason and reentry (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because PTSD was prevalent and obvious and treatment was unavailable, discouraged and not applied. The applicant contends that in today's Army the applicant's case would have been treated differently resulting in treatment being available and utilized and more than likely, the applicant would have finished or continued the enlistment. The applicant requests disability. The applicant contends the applicant's age was a factor in the discharge and a desire to rejoin the military service. In a records review conducted on 26 April 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 18 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The notification is dated 21 January 2005 and the AMHRR is void of an acknowledgment. (2) Basis for Separation: Under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was driving under the influence on two separate occasions (1 May and 12 November 2004). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant waived legal counsel, but date is unavailable. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 January 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority approved the separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 April 2004 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 3 years, 1 month, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 February 2002 - 5 April 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 December 2002 - 21 July 2003); Iraq (14 January 2004 - 17 April 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CIB, EIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Blotter, dated 1 May 2004, reflects the applicant was apprehended for driving while impaired after being stopped for reckless driving to endanger, no operator's license, and driving after consuming under the age of 21 years. The applicant was administered an intoxilyzer test, which resulted in a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .16 percent. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, 6 May 2004, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired (1 May 2004). A breath analysis test administered established the applicant's blood alcohol content resulted in .16 percent. North Carolina Uniform Citation, dated 12 November 2004, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving while impaired, consuming alcohol while under 21 years old, and failing to stop the vehicle at the scene of an accident (12 November 2004). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 November 2004, reflects the applicant was driving while impaired (12 November 2004) and refused to take the breath analysis test. FG Article 15, dated 24 November 2004, for disobeying the weekly unit safety briefing, which action was prejudicial to good order (12 November 2004) and discipline and violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully drinking alcohol while under the age of 21 years (12 November 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $597 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 December 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions and/or training deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible; could understand the difference between right and wrong; and, could participate in the proceedings. The evaluation did not indicate any diagnosis. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for driving while impaired and drinking underage. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs Progress Notes, dated 25 April and 1 March 2019, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Depressive Disorder; and, Alcohol Use Disorder, in remission (between 3 January 2011 and 22 January 2016). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; résumé; self-authored statement; Progress Notes; five articles/documents regarding PTSD; U.S. Army Medical Command Policy Guidance on the Assessment and Treatment of PTSD; "Hagel memo"; "Kurta memo"; and, "Carson memo." 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a résumé reflecting various certifications, positions in employment, and advancement in college education. 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) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 "JKN" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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: 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. RE-3A Applies to: Person separated prior to the effective date of the regulation but who did not meet reentry criteria at time of separation. 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 narrative reason and reentry code change. 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 to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Minor Infractions)," and the separation code is "JKN." 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 further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; Depressive Disorder; and, Alcohol Use Disorder, in remission. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 December 2004, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions and/or training deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible; could understand the difference between right and wrong; and, could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends not receiving any treatment for PTSD, which led to the alcohol related incidents. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends in today's Army the case would have been treated differently resulting in treatment and completion of enlistment. The Board considered the applicant's mental health conditions, the severity of the misconduct, and any mitigating evidence to determine whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity or injustice. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant requests a disability discharge. The applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed 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 obtaining various certifications, positions in employment, and advancement in college education. 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, after applying liberal consideration found applicant's PTSD mitigated applicant's original basis for separation that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to HD, and now warrants reconsideration of applicant's discharge narrative/SPD and RE Code. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, found applicant's PTSD mitigated applicant's original basis for separation that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to HD, and now warrants reconsideration of applicant's discharge narrative/SPD and RE Code. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor, and determined that the PTSD outweighed the applicant's mitigated original basis for separation that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to HD, but found that applicant's discharge narrative/SPD and RE code is not outweighed by the applicant's BH condition and the discharge narrative/SPD and RE code does not warrant any change. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that applicant's discharge narrative/SPD and RE code is not outweighed by the applicant's BH condition and the discharge narrative/SPD and RE code does not warrant any change. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior, which led to the discharge. The Board determined, while liberal consideration was applied in this case, the applicant still committed misconduct and the PTSD does not completely dismiss it or expunge the evidence of multiple DUIs from the record. The discharge is both proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner that the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends not receiving any treatment for PTSD which led to the alcohol related incidents. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with medical concerns, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant's multiple DUIs is not an acceptable response to dealing with medical concerns or alcohol use, thus the discharge was properly and equitably. (5) The applicant contends in today's Army the case would have been treated differently resulting in treatment and completion of enlistment. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant already received an upgrade to HD with a narrative reason, Minor Infractions. Therefore, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's narrative reason 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. Therefore, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. (7) The applicant requests a disability discharge. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (8) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and determined that an RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed 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. (9) The applicant contends obtaining various certifications, positions in employment, and advancement in college education. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant already received an upgrade to HD and a narrative reason of Minor Infractions. Therefore, the Board determined that further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. The board determined the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's mitigated original basis for separation that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to HD but found that applicant's discharge narrative/SPD is not outweighed by the applicant's BH condition and the discharge narrative/SPD does not warrant any change. The medical mitigation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority because the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct, and the applicant's PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant's responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Misconduct (Minor Infractions) narrative applies in this case. (2) 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 AR20210003235 1