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, he served nearly 14 years in the military and lost four children upon returning from deployments. The applicant was involved in a series of depression/situational alcohol abuse incidents with the last ending in a fourth driving under the influence accident. Due to the applicant’s high level of execution, the medical/treatment remedy at the command level and Army Hospital were missed; treating the symptom and not the true problem; loss of life in the immediate family as a parent. The big miss was grief counseling. The applicant was quickly moved through the process and misdiagnosed, evident in the separation board’s testimony by Dr. H.S. The applicant is pursuing his Doctorate, having completed his MBA and has a great opportunity to act as an advisor and support mentor for Manatee County Drug Court to assist veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs and ongoing support but he needs to have an honorable discharge. The applicant enlisted once and completed the term and reenlisted four times and received an honorable each time. The applicant losing his children while deployed, placed him in a challenge where he could never have been able to regain normalcy until it was addressed. This was the error versus the perceived outward perception of him as a Soldier. The applicant was a Sergeant First Class, a senior noncommissioned officer. Based on this error in diagnosis, which would have most likely prevented multiple occurrences and his future value to Veterans in need of support, he requests the characterization of discharge be changed to honorable and the narrative reason for separation to match the upgrade accordingly, “Completion of Required Active Service.” The applicant never received documentation from the 16 October 2013 submission, but did receive half of his GI Bill support which an honorable is required to receive. There was no change in the status of his discharge and is unclear what occurred. In a records review conducted on 27 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 July 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The Notification is dated 7 November 2003; the applicant’s acknowledgment is not in file. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant had three DUI convictions and a fourth DUI charge for which he was awaiting trial. During the most recent DUI charge, the applicant injured four innocent passengers in another vehicle. In addition to the applicant’s DUIs, he was arrested on post for resisting arrest, assaulting a military officer, and being drunk and disorderly. The commander believed the separation was the only action deemed appropriate. The applicant’s conduct was unacceptable and contrary to good order and discipline required of a Soldier in the U.S. Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 November 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 18 November 2003, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 8 April 2004, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 December 1999 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / Associate’s Degree / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 19D1S D3, Calvary Scout / 14 years, 2 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 April 1990 – 21 May 1992 / HD RA, 22 May 1992 – 18 January 1994 / HD RA, 19 January 1994 – 7 June 1995 / HD RA, 8 June 1995 – 16 October 1996 / HD RA, 17 October 1996 – 9 December 1999 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-6, AGCM-3, KDSM, ASUA, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, HSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, EIB g. Performance Ratings: October 1999 – June 2000 / Among the Best July 2000 – March 2001 / Among the Best April 2001 – March 2002 / Fully Capable April 2002 – January 2003 / Among the Best February 2003 – January 2004 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Second Endorsement, subject: Disqualification of the Army Good Conduct Medal, undated, reflects the command’s request for disqualification of the AGCM, dated 25 March 2003, was approved. Staff Judge Advocate Comment, reflects on 5 October 2003, the applicant had a blood alcohol of .22, which was almost three times the legal limit. The applicant was speeding at approximately 65 to 70 miles an hour and lost control of the vehicle causing an extremely serious life threatening head-on accident. The applicant injured occupants from the other vehicle; one victim received a fractured pelvic bone and collar bone and was out of work for three months as a result of the accident and another was knocked unconscious and had to be cut from the vehicle and continues to suffer from numbness and tingling in her legs. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided an excerpt from the transcript from the applicant’s administrative board proceedings, which provided testimony regarding the applicant’s character and work performance to include testimony from Ms. H.C., Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor and Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselor, which revealed in July 2001, the applicant was referred to ASAP, the first time, for being drunk and disorderly but was not enrolled because there was no diagnosis. In January 2002, the applicant was referred for disorderly conduct and alcohol was involved. The applicant was seen for five sessions; the applicant was provided substance abuse material and the case was closed. On 3 October 2002, the counselor saw the applicant and was then informed by the command, the applicant had three DUIs plus the current one. At that point it was labeled alcohol abuse. The applicant opened up and discussed the death of his daughter, his divorce, and his wife’s miscarriage. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; Orders Number 155-2, SFC Promotion; Letter of Congratulations – U.S. Army Special Forces; self-authored memorandum in support of his administrative separation proceedings; two third party letters; two DA Forms 1059; eight DA Forms 2166-7; Excerpt from Administrative Separation Board Transcript. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is pursuing his Doctorate, having completed his MBA and has a great opportunity to act as an advisor and support mentor for Manatee County Drug Court to assist veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs. discharge 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable 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 waiverable. 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 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 suffered from depression which led to his behavior and ultimately his discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of depression diagnosis. The applicant provided an excerpt from his Administrative Board proceedings in which a ASAP counselor labeled his actions as alcohol abuse. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. 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 the command erred in their perception of him as a Soldier and failed to provide the proper assistance. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by referring the applicant to ASAP for counseling. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including overseas assignments. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant is pursuing his Doctorate, having completed his MBA and has a great opportunity to act as an advisor and support mentor for Manatee County Drug Court to assist veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs and ongoing support. 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 contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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? No. 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 there is insufficient evidence to indicate that applicant had any BH condition or experience that may mitigate applicant’s basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to change due to depression, family issues, and grief. The Board concurred with the Board’s Medical Advisor that applicant’s depression and grief did not mitigate and therefore did not outweigh the applicant’s four DUIs, Drunk and Disorderly, Assault, and Resisting Arrest that were the basis of separation. (2) The applicant contends the command erred in their perception of him as a Soldier. The Board determined the evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant’s command acted appropriately throughout applicant’s time in service. (3) The applicant contends good service, including overseas assignments. The Board considered applicant’s quality of service and 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. As a result of four DUIs, Drunk and Disorderly, Assault, and Resisting Arrest, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends he is pursuing his Doctorate, having completed his MBA and has a great opportunity to act as an advisor and support mentor for Manatee County Drug Court to assist veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs and ongoing support. The Board considered applicant’s post-service accomplishments but determined those accomplishments do not warrant any change to applicant’s discharge. 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. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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, 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. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant’s assertion of depression and grief did not mitigate the offenses of four DUIs, Drunk and Disorderly, Assault, and Resisting Arrest. The Board concluded that 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 AR20210003283 1