1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant's discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in five and a half years of service with no other adverse action. This incident was unrelated to applicant's service in the Army, but being an officer, applicant was asked to resign as a result of the incident. Applicant had a great career in the Army and never received negative feedback or negative counseling from any superiors. He was the recipient of many awards during his service and served honorably. Applicant was involved in a fist fight with two other people. Applicant was charged with misdemeanor assault because of this incident which was caused by applicant's PTSD. This incident was caused by applicant's undiagnosed PTSD and would have never happened if he had not experienced the episode of PTSD. Applicant experienced what applicant's psychologist called a "flashback and or dissociation". Applicant felt disconnected from them self and applicant's surroundings and temporarily lost touch with what was going on around applicant. The applicant acted violently due to the nature of the flashback. Applicant's service was honorable because applicant served this country well and followed every command and order given. Applicant was passionate about this country and applicant position. Applicant took pride in what applicant did and who/what that represented. If it had not been for the single flashback episode applicant would still be serving honorably today. Applicant is a respected husband, father, and productive member of applicant's community. Applicant is involved with the church where applicant serves. The applicant also has two daughters and a wife which applicant loves and spends all applicant's free time with. Applicant also holds a high level job with the company and is doing very well. In a records review conducted on 9 February 2022, and by a 3-2 vote, the majority of the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service.Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (5) and (8) for acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: For misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming an officer, and for receiving an administrative reprimand which was filed in applicant's Official Military Performance File (OMPF) in accordance with AR 600-37. Specifically, on 22 June 2014, after consuming alcohol throughout the day, the officer was involved in a verbal altercation with an unknown male in an alley outside of a bar in Nashville, Tennessee. Later in the evening, applicant entered a nearby condominium and assaulted a woman by hitting her in the head with a cardboard box, punching her in the head with applicant's fists, and slamming her head into the wall and floor. When two other residents attempted to intercede and prevent applicant from causing further harm to the woman, applicant became combative and engaged in a physical altercation with them, which resulted in damage to the apartment complex and applicant's arrest by local law enforcement officials. Applicant was reprimanded for this misconduct in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 September 2014 that was filed in applicant's OMPF. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 11 December 2014, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for a conditional resignation in lieu of elimination / General (Under Honorable Conditions) On 10 March 2015, the Army's M&RA DASA rejected the applicant's conditional resignation and returned the case to a Board of Inquiry. On 27 March 2015, the applicant submitted an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. On 1 April 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's unconditional resignation, and recommended the applicant be eliminated from the Army Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 18 December 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 22 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 13A 2B Field Artillery, General / 5 years, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: CDT, 28 August 2007 - 17 December 2009 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (28 August 2012 - 4 May 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, BSM, AAM-2, ASUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 30 November 2010 - 20 July 2011 / Best Qualified 20 July 2011 - 10 November 2011 / Fully Qualified 11 November 2011 - 10 November 2012 / Best Qualified 11 November 2012 - 23 July 2013 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Metropolitan Police Department. Nashville, Tennessee, Incident Report, dated 23 June 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with aggravated assault, simple assault and damage to property. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 September 2014, for conduct unbecoming an officer, damaging private property, and aggravated assault. On 22 June 2014, after consuming alcohol throughout the day, the applicant was involved in a verbal altercation with an unknown male in an ally outside of a bar in Nashville, Tennessee. Later in the evening, the applicant entered a nearby condominium and assaulted a woman by hitting her in the head with a cardboard box, punching her in the head with applicant's fists, and slamming her head into the wall and floor. When two other residents attempted to intercede and prevent applicant from causing further harm to the woman, applicant became combative and engaged in a physical altercation with them, which resulted in damage to the apartment complex and applicant was arrested by local law enforcement officials. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 30 October 2014, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Applicant was evaluated to determine if clinically significant symptoms of PTSD or TBI were present and the results were negative. Clinically significant symptoms do not appear to have contributed to applicant's military inefficiency or unsuitability. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a Nashville Veteran Center Information report, dated 27 December 2018, which reflects applicant was assessed with PTSD on 20 March 2018. The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision, dated 3 June 2019, which reflects applicant was granted 70 percent service connection for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; three third party letters; VA Administrative Decision letter; Army Achievement Medal Certificate; Bronze Star Medal Certificate; DA Form 67-10-1; Resignation in Lieu of Elimination Message; Memorandum for Commanding General; Memorandum for Record; Nashville Vet Center Report; VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, applicant is a respected husband, father, and productive member of the community. Applicant is involved with applicant's church where applicant serves. Applicant also has two daughters and a wife which applicant loves and spends all of applicant's free time with. The applicant also holds a high level job with the company and is doing very well. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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 a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends having been diagnosed PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 October 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends applicant has obtained employment and volunteers in the 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize 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 and found that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD that could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD. (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 a BH diagnosis of PTSD, applicant's aggravated assault and vandalism are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PSTD, and therefore are not mitigated by applicant's PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No, after applying liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor's opine that the applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the discharge as it was not mitigating for the misconduct that lead to the discharge as outlined in (3). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, and ultimately determined that this contention, while only a single event, did not warrant an upgrade to Honorable. However, the Board voted to upgrade the characterization of the discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's overall quality and length of service, including combat service as compared to the unmitigated basis for separation, making the current discharge characterization inequitable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention during deliberation and the Board voted to upgrade the characterization of the discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's overall quality and length of service, including combat service. (3) The applicant contends having been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. While the Board liberally considered this contention, the weight of the evidence did not support that applicant's basis for separation is mitigated by applicant's PTSD. However, the Board voted to upgrade the characterization of the discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's overall quality and length of service, including combat service. (4) The applicant contends applicant has obtained employment and volunteers in the community. 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 did not rely on this contention, but voted to upgrade the characterization of the discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's overall quality and length of service, including combat service. c. The majority of the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions because the applicant's overall length and quality of service, including combat service made the current characterization of the discharge inequitable, but all other aspects of the discharge were both proper and equitable. (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 / Issue a New Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20210003272 8