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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from service in the military and would like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to help treat applicant's illness. The applicant described pre-military life playing sports, marrying applicant's high school sweetheart, and, having a son. The applicant joined the military as an Infantryman, at age 23 years old. After training, applicant left family at Fort Stewart, and deployed to Iraq. The Soldiers in Iraq did and saw things the applicant still has nightmares about. The applicant witnessed a very good friend shot in the throat, right in front of the applicant, and the friend begged for the friend's family for two hours before the friend died. The Soldiers conducted patrols and kicked doors in and sometimes had to use deadly force. When the applicant returned from the deployment, applicant's wife and child were gone. The applicant began to have a drinking problem and nightmares and the Army would not help, telling applicant it was just something that happened at war. The applicant was a great Soldier; had lots of medals and was the hero of the battalion. The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) for a month but never left the post. The applicant either remained in applicant's room, drunk or was at a friend's home, right off-post. The applicant returned and did time in jail. The applicant begged to reenlist, but was refused. This was a long time ago and it seems like the applicant just came back from war, yesterday. The applicant loves this country and served it proudly. The applicant is requesting an upgrade in order to receive mental health medical assistance. The applicant also lost 20 percent of applicant's hearing in the right ear. The applicant wanted to change the discharge for over 10 years because applicant was ashamed, but applicant deserves veteran's benefits. At one point after applicant's discharge the applicant was incarcerated and was unable to provide supporting documentation. In a records review conducted on 11 January 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of alcohol abuse and AWOL.. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 December 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 December 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was AWOL from 24 May to 12 July 2007; AWOL from 16 July to 5 November 2007; and was found drunk on duty on 13 July 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 4 December 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 4 December 2007, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 December 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 August 2005 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 5 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 January 2004 - 24 August 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CAB / The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the NDSM; however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 9 May 2007; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective date 10 May 2007; From "DFR," to "PDY," effective date 12 July 2007; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective date 16 July 2007; From "AWOL" to "DFR," effective date 17 July 2007; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective date 5 November 2007. Intoxilyzer - Alcohol Analyzer result, dated 13 July 2007, reflects the applicant's blood alcohol content was .159. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 14 November 2007, reflects the applicant agreed to accept a summary court-martial for charges against applicant (preferred on 14 November 2007); to plead guilty to the charges and specifications; and, to unconditionally waive an administrative board for any administrative action recommending a discharge with a characterization of service as other than honorable in exchange for the Convening Authority agreeing to refer the case to a summary court-martial. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 21 November 2007. The applicant was charged with three specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, AWOL: From 24 May to 12 July 2007; guilty consistent with the plea; and, From 16 July to 5 November 2007; guilty consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for Drunk on Duty: On 13 July 2007; guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-3; forfeiture $867 pay; and, confinement for 29 days. On 28 November 2007, the sentence was approved and ordered executed. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 November 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. Report of Medical Examination, dated 27 November 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: H2 profile - left ear mid to high frequency no [illegible]. Nine Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct and regarding applicant's enrollment in the Army Substance Abuse Program. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 176 days: AWOL, 9 May - 11 July 2007 / NIF AWOL, 16 July - 4 November 2007 / Surrendered CMA (NIF) / Confinement Order reflects the applicant was confined on 5 November 2007, by military authorities for being AWOL. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29. CMA (NIF) / Result of Trial reflects the applicant was sentenced to confinement for 29 days. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided Imperial Calcasieu Human Services Authority Progress Note, dated 28 March 2021, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with complex PTSD directly related to combat experience while serving in the Army during applicant's deployment in Iraq in 2006 to 2007. The applicant has not had access to services at the VA, which is best equipped to address the former servicemember's illness. Although formal neuropsychological testing was not available in the context of the psychiatrist's general psychiatric diagnostic interview, there were concerns that the applicant may have symptoms related to traumatic brain injury as a result of applicant's involvement in multiple explosions while in combat. The psychiatrist stated the applicant's substance abuse did not account for the applicant's nightmares, flashbacks, hyperarousal, guilt, and social avoidance. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; two self-authored statements; medical documents; DD Form 214; separation orders; Record of Emergency Data; Enlisted Record Brief; three third party statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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 a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and the illness affected applicant's behavior and ultimately led to discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating applicant was diagnosed with complex PTSD and prescribed medication. The psychiatrist also believes the applicant is suffering from TBI, but admits not having the ability to test for TBI in the psychiatrist's capacity. The applicant provided third party statements attesting to a change in the applicant's behavior after deployment. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 28 November 2007, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends applicant did not receive any assistance from the Army with applicant's PTSD or alcohol problem. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling through the command and through enrollment in the Army Substance Abuse Program. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states Soldiers may self-refer to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow applicant to receive VA benefits and treatment for PTSD. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 the applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence and PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate AWOL and substance abuse which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant had PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, after liberally consideration, opined that the applicant'sPTSD mitigates the applicant's misconduct of AWOL and substance abuse. The sequela of PTSD include avoidant behavior (AWOL) and substance use to manage symptoms. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that applicant's PTSD outweighed AWOL and substance use as the basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and the illness affected applicant's behavior and ultimately led to discharge. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's substance use and AWOL charges. (2) The applicant contends applicant did not receive any assistance from the Army with PTSD or applicant's alcohol problem. The Board considered this contention but concluded an upgrade was warranted based exclusively on applicant's PTSD mitigating the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined that this contention was valid but concluded an upgrade was warranted based exclusively on applicant's PTSD that mitigated the applicant's substance abuse and AWOL charges. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to receive VA benefits and treatment for PTSD. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance regarding VA benefits. c. The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of alcohol abuse and AWOL. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of alcohol abuse and AWOL. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210003279 1