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 enlisted in the Army in 2006 right after applicant graduated from High School at the age of 18. About six months into applicant’s military career applicant found them self in an active war zone (Iraq). During applicant’s deployment applicant was involved in several IED attacks and raids and participated in several prisoner transports and arrests. Applicant lost several brothers during this deployment as well. While back at Garrison, applicant was having a difficult time readjusting to the way the real Army operated while not on deployment. The applicant received several counseling statements for easily avoidable situations, which applicant could not quite figure out how applicant always was involved in. Applicant was arrested in 2008 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon which all charges were dropped by applicant’s then wife, because she lied to the police during this ordeal. Once applicant separated from the Army, applicant was having a very hard time adjusting and could not figure out what was wrong. After a few years of being separated, applicant was finally able to admit applicant was suffering from PTSD and TBI which may have went undiagnosed and untreated during active duty service. Once applicant realized applicant was struggling the invisible wounds of war, applicant began seeking treatment from the VA mental health teams and several therapy sessions during this period of healing. Applicant has an 80 percent VA benefits rating which is total and permanent. Applicant applied for an upgrade in 2010 when applicant was only 21 years old. Applicant had no clue what applicant was applying for and the application was denied. In a records review conducted on 22 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 June 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 June 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon because applicant threatened to stab applicant’s wife with a knife. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 June 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 September 2006 / 4 years, 28 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63D10, Artillery Mechanic / 2 years, 9 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (6 May 2007 – 22 December 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 5 September 2008, reflects the applicant was arrested after applicant’s wife stated after a verbal altercation with her husband, it turned physical and applicant grabbed a knife and threatened her. The officer observed a knife on the bedroom floor and applicant was taken into custody. During processing the applicant’s driver’s license was checked and returned with two traffic warrants. Applicant was transported to the El Paso County Detention Facility and booked on a $20,000 bond. The offenses were aggravated assault w/deadly weapon (off post); spouse abuse – civilian female (off post); and two outstanding traffic warrants (off post). Upon posting bail, applicant was transported to the MP station where applicant was further processed and released to applicant’s unit. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 4 June 2009, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. There was no mental disease or defect, which would warrant a disposition through medical/psychiatric channels and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 8 June 2009, reflects the applicant stated applicant has PTSD and complained of depression which was not currently being treated. Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 June 2009, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression. Consult Request, dated 9 August 2016, reflects the applicant received a service connected evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD. VA letter, dated 16 May 2019, reflects the applicant is 80 percent combined service disabilities. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD form 293; Medical Records; Memorandum For Transition; Certificate of Commendation; Award of Recognition; Senate and General Assembly Citation; Certificate of Completion of Firefighter 1 Course; Permanent Order 354-033E; Department of Veterans Affairs Letter; ADRB Case Number AR20100009342; and a Letter from Spouse. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, applicant has successfully completed the NJ Firefighter course and has become a volunteer firefighter and has contributed positively to applicant’s community. 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). 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. 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 and a narrative reason 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 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 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 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 family issues 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 contends applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating he was diagnosed with depression symptoms with noted history of Bipolar I Disorder, PTSD and Cannabis Use Disorder. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 4 June 2009, which indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. There was no mental disease or defect, which would warrant a disposition through medical/psychiatric channels and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends applicant has successfully completed the NJ Firefighter course and has become a volunteer firefighter and has contributed positively to applicant’s community. 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. 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 third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Depression, PTSD, Partner Relational Problem, Cannabis Dependence. Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Personality Disorder, which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and PTSD as well as Partner Relational Problem. Applicant has additional post- service BH diagnoses of Cannabis Dependence. Alcohol Dependence, Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Personality Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant has BH diagnoses of PTSD and other BH disorders, these BH conditions do not mitigate applicant’s threat to stab applicant’s wife and Contributing Alcohol to a Minor because these forms of misconduct that were the basis for applicant’s separation are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD or applicant’s other BH disorders. (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 conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board determined that the available evidence did not warrant a change to the narrative reason for the discharge. (2) 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. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner and that the weight of the evidence did not support that applicant’s contention of youth and immaturity warrant any change to the discharge. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant’s single event warranted any change to the applicant’s discharge. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant sought, let alone was denied any assistance regarding any family issues, and therefore does not warrant any change to the applicant’s discharge. (5) The applicant contends applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board, even after applying liberal consideration, determined that the applicant’s PTSD did not mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation. (6) The applicant contends applicant has successfully completed the NJ Firefighter course and has become a volunteer firefighter and has contributed positively to applicant’s community. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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 post service factor did not warrant any change to applicant’s discharge. (7) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted not to change the RE-code, because applicant’s current RE-3 is a waivable code, and no further change was warranted. 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. 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 threatening to stab applicant’s wife and Contributing Alcohol to a minor, 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 AR20210003259 1