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, the reason for pleading with the Board to upgrade the discharge, reentry code to "2" or "3," and narrative reason to Secretarial Authority is because of the undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder at the time of the discharge. The applicant separated in 2007 and again in 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed the applicant with anxiety and major depressive disorder and later properly diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol abuse in early remission. In 2006, the applicant received an honorable discharge. The applicant did not know how to deal with problems as a young Soldier in the Army. Since then the applicant received cognitive processing therapy for PTSD, earned a Bachelor's of Science in Criminal Justice and Business Administrative. The applicant also graduated Basic Police Officer Training Course for the U.S. Air Force. The applicant was properly diagnosed with PTSD from service in Iraq. The applicant asks the Board to review the way the discharge was handled and look for misclassification or an inequitable discharge. In a records review conducted on 25 January 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 October 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was referred to the Community Counseling Center (CCC) on 21 March 2007, as the result of an alcohol related domestic disturbance. The applicant was evaluated on 26 April 2007 and met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse. There were two Rehabilitation Team Meetings scheduled to enroll the applicant with his chain of command, on 14 May 2007 and 12 June 2007 and they were not kept. On 31 July 2007, the applicant referred himself back into the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), citing that he had continued to abuse alcohol as well as cannabis. The applicant was evaluated on 1 August 2007 and found to meet DSM IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence and cannabis dependence. On 15 August 2007, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP to attend level 1 outpatient treatment. The applicant attended one individual and four group counseling sessions over a period of 45 days. On 25 September 2007, the applicant was declared a rehabilitation failure. The commander continued to explain the reason he was recommending a general (under honorable conditions) was on 6 April 2006, the applicant unlawfully struck Private M. on the head with a rock. On 24 February 2007, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command to have no contact with P.H. On 21 April 2007, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 October 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 December 2006 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED /111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 4 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 June 2005 - 7 December 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (24 March 2006 - 30 July 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: No Contact Order, dated 27 February 2007, reflects the applicant was ordered by CPT B.D., to not have any contact with P.H. CG Article 15, dated 20 March 2007, for willfully disobeying Captain M.G., his superior commissioned officer, to not have any contact with P.H. (between 24 February and 25 February 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $182, forfeiture of $175 pay (suspended); extra duty for 14 days; and, restriction for 14 days (suspended). Military Police Report, dated 27 March 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: spouse abuse - civilian female victim (On Post); assault (On Post); and, harassment. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 11 May 2007, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 20 March 2007, was vacated for, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (21 April 2007). Military Police Report, dated 8 September 2007, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: simple assault under Article 128, UCMJ. Investigation revealed the applicant and his wife were involved in a verbal altercation, which turned physical when the applicant slapped P.H. on the face with an open hand. P.H. was seen by Fort Drum medical services, for high stress being that she was 33 weeks pregnant. Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Drum, NY, Memorandum, subject: Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (CRC) Notification, dated 27 September 2007, reflects the allegation of spouse physical abuse, with the applicant as the offender was substantiated. The applicant who was enrolled in ASAP, admitted he was drinking the night before and drinks regularly. The applicant and his spouse had multiple substantiated FAP cases. There were no further Army services which could have helped the family as neither the applicant nor his wife appeared willing to make the changes necessary for a non-violent lifestyle. Memorandum for Record, subject: Separation Statement, dated 24 October 2007, the applicant explained the reasons he turned to alcohol and drugs and indicated he was entitled to an honorable discharge due to his self-referral into ASAP. Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Drum, NY, Memorandum, subject: Synopsis of Rehabilitation Efforts for [Applicant], dated 28 September 2007, reflects the applicant was initially referred to the Behavioral Health Department, Community Counseling Center on 21 March 2007, as a result of an alcohol related domestic disturbance. The applicant was evaluated and found to meet DSM IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse. The applicant was scheduled to be enrolled in the program by the 1SG and while waiting for the unit to enroll him, the applicant self-enrolled himself in ASAP. The applicant was found to meet diagnostic impression criteria for alcohol dependence and cannabis dependence. While in the program, the applicant was involved in another domestic incident and he admitted he had been drinking. On 25 September 2007, the Rear Detachment Commander, SSG M., in consultation with the Community Counseling Center Counselor, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. Report of Medical History, dated 16 October 2007, the applicant noted in the explanation of "Yes" answers section: Anger management at behavioral health seen by S.B., Colonel S., and a few others. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Reviewed all. Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 October 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Depression. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 30 September 2013, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD with alcohol abuse (previously anxiety disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two third party statements; U.S. Customs and Border Protection Letter, with Acknowledgment; VA Disability Rating Decision; DD Form 214; Bachelor of Science Degree; VA Law Enforcement Training Center USAF Basic Police Officer Training Course Certificate with transcript; U.S. Border Patrol Sign-cutting Course Certificate; Associate of Arts Degree; Progress Notes; Civilian Rating of Record; U.S. Army Honorable Discharge Certificate (2006). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has attended cognitive therapy; earned his Bachelors of Science in Criminal Justice, Business, and Administration Degrees; and graduated from the Basic Police Officer Training Course for the USAF. Third party letter, dated 10 November 2016, to support law school admissions, reflects the applicant worked as a civilian Federal Security Officer and ran for Mayor of Del Rio, TX. The applicant was described as an outstanding civil servant and family man. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. (5) Paragraph 9-4, stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600-85, paragraph 6-4. (6) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-2 Applies to: Person separated prior to the effective date of the regulation. These codes will not be used. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment, provided reason and authority does not preclude enlistment or require a waiver. Applicant may not enlist until 93 days after separation if otherwise qualified. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 evidence of record indicates while in the program, the applicant was involved in another domestic incident and the applicant admitted to drinking. On 25 September 2007, the Rear Detachment Commander, SSG M., in consultation with the Community Counseling Center Counselor, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "alcohol / drug rehabilitation failure," and the separation code is "JPD." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 SPD code should be changed. SPD 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 9, is "JPD." The applicant contends the reentry code needs changed. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD, which affected the behavior and ultimately led to the discharge, and later diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service depression; alcohol dependence/abuse; and cannabis dependence. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant provided a VA disability rating decision indicating diagnosis with PTSD with alcohol abuse (previously anxiety disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder). The applicant AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends attending cognitive therapy; earned a Bachelor's of Science in Criminal Justice, Business, and Administration Degrees; and graduated from the Basic Police Officer Training Course for the USAF. A third party statement reflects the applicant worked as a civilian Federal Security Officer and ran for Mayor of Del Rio, TX and described the applicant as an outstanding civil servant and family man. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that applicant's BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Cannabis Dependence, and PTSD could mitigate the basis for applicant's separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant's BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Cannabis Dependence, and PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor determined, after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, that applicant's PTSD mitigates substance usage to manage PTSD and FTR is part of the sequela of PTSD, but Domestic Violence, striking a person on the head with a rock, and disobeying a lawful command to have no contact are not behaviors that have any nexus with PTSD, and therefore are not mitigated by applicant's PTSD as basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the unmitigated domestic violence, striking a person on the head with a rock, and disobeying a no contact order that were the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge and the reentry code needs to change. The Board considered this contention but found the characterization of service was both proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record (2) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD as later diagnosed by the VA, and that PTSD affected the behavior that ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that PTSD partially mitigated the basis of separation, but the unmitigated domestic violence, striking a person on the head with a rock, and disobeying a no contact order that were the basis for applicant's separation did not support any change to applicant's discharge. 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 Servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined the applicant met all requirements of service to include age and due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful discretion does not excuse the misconduct. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 the misconduct of Domestic Violence, striking a person on the head with a rock, and disobeying a no contact order, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board found the characterization of service was both 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, the applicant's BH diagnoses of PTSD and OBHI did not outweigh the offenses of Domestic Violence, striking a person on the head with a rock, and disobeying a no contact order. 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 AR20210003276 1