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 applicant was discharged for patterns of misconduct due to alcohol related incidents. The applicant is rated at 100 percent disabled for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Army Behavioral Health was treating the applicant for adjustment disorder. The applicant was self-medicating the symptoms of PTSD after two deployments by excessively drinking alcohol. The applicant was also diagnosed with chronic PTSD. The applicant references various pages from the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder literature provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 6 January 2022, and by a 3-2 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 October 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 November 2012, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 percent; on 5 November 2012, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; on 5 November 2012, the applicant failed out of the Warrior Leader Course for excessive tardiness; between 5 November 2012 and 3 August 2013, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order to not drive on any military installation; on 15 April 2013, for a second time, the applicant failed out of Warrior Leader Course for failing the initial Army Physical Fitness Test; and, on 3 August 2013, for a second time, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of 0.21 percent. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 October 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 25 October 2013, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. On 15 January 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of all rights. On 25 February 2014, 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 28 February 2014, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's conditional wavier. On 3 March 2014, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 14 March 2014, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 March 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 August 2007 / 6 years / The Oath of Extension of Enlistment, dated 14 March 2012, reflects the applicant extended enlistment by two months and had a new ETS of 10 April 2015 (extending enlistment by 20 months); however, this would have given the applicant a new ETS of 10 October 2013. The document appears to be in error and the AMHRR is void of any enlistment document, which would have extended the applicant's service beyond 10 October 2013. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 7 April 2014, reflects an ETS of 10 April 2015. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 89D10, EOD Specialist / 9 years, 10 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 21 February 2002 - 16 July 2003 / UNC IADT, 6 June 2002 - 16 August 2002 / NA (Concurrent Service) (Break in Service) USMC, 28 April 2004 - 6 May 2004 / NIF (Break in Service) RA, 27 October 2005 - 10 August 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 April 2007 - 2 July 2008; 17 October 2009 - 14 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-3, AAM, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 24 January 2009 - 23 January 2010 / Fully Capable 24 January 2010 - 22 January 2011 / Fully Capable 22 January 2011 - 24 April 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 5 November 2012, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards for the Warrior Leader Course and was dismissed from the coarse, due to excessive tardiness. Military Police Report, dated 7 November 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended by military police for Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device (No Left Turn) and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (On Post), when a policemen observed the applicant failing to obey a No Left Turn traffic control device and initiated a traffic stop (4 November 2012). An alcoholic beverage was detected emitting from the applicant and the applicant voluntarily submitted to field sobriety tests, which showed signs of impairment. The applicant submitted breath alcohol tests (BRAC) with results of .124/.131 percent). Western District of Washington, Judgment in a Criminal Case, dated 27 February 2013, reflects the applicant pled guilty to Negligent Driving, 1st Degree. The sentence consisted of a fine of $350. Three Memorandums for Record, dated 31 May 2013, show an Administrative Reduction Board convened and the members recommended the applicant be reduced to Specialist/E-4 and reassigned to another organization for the alcohol abuse; failure to reflect the qualities of an NCO; and, using poor judgement in off duty actions and showing a lack of responsibility and Army Values. The applicant's ERB reflects the date of rank for Sergeant as 1 June 2008 and for Specialist as 6 June 2013. Memorandum, subject: Summary of Rehabilitation Efforts [Applicant], dated 13 August 2013, reflects the ASAP Clinical Director, recommended the applicant be declared a rehabilitation failure so treatment may be afforded to the applicant through the Veteran's Administration Hospital. The Director's recommendation was based on the applicant receiving two DUIs; the applicant's admission the applicant stopped taking Antabuse medication; and, continued to abuse alcohol, and failing to comply with ASAP requirements. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 August 2013, reflects the applicant could understand and participate and administrative proceedings; and, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Alcohol Dependence in Remission. Report of Medical History, dated 4 September 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Adjustment Disorder under the care of Behavioral Health; Insomnia; and Anxiety and Depression. Report of Medical Examination, dated 4 September 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Alcohol Abuse. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 October 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Alcohol Dependence in Remission. The applicant provided Health Record, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 27 March 2014, reflecting the applicant was treated for: Chronic, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and Depressed Mood; and, Alcohol Dependence with Episodic Drinking Behavior. The applicant provided a copy of the VA disability rating decision, dated 11 May 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder with traumatic brain injury. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Privacy Release Form; in-service medical records; PTSD Diagnostic Criteria; third party letter; VA disability rating decision. 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (7) 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 a diagnosis of PTSD and adjustment disorder. The applicant used alcohol as a way to self-medicate, which led to the behaviors which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant was rated 100 percent disabled for PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided service medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with in-service PTSD; adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; and alcohol dependence and VA documents rating of 100 percent for disability for PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder with traumatic brain injury. The AMHRR reflects the applicant underwent two mental status evaluations and was cleared for administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood and Alcohol Dependence in Remission. The MSEs were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant, recognize good conduct while serving on active duty. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 and determined the applicant is diagnosed with combat-related 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 the applicant diagnosed with combat-related PTSD by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member opined the applicant's PTSD mitigates some of the misconduct, given the association between PTSD, substance use, avoidance, and oppositional behaviors, applicant's offenses of failing to report, tardiness, failure to obey orders, and simple DUI (1st offense). While applicant's PTSD was likely contributory to the 2nd DUI, this offense included minor children present in the vehicle and given the severity, the offense is not mitigated by applicant's PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that BH diagnoses of combat related PTSD is often associated with substance use, avoidance, and oppositional behaviors, however, after applying liberal consideration, found that the applicant's 2nd DUI with children present in the vehicle outweighs the applicant's PTSD. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends a diagnoses of PTSD and adjustment disorder for which applicant self-medicated with alcohol, and that alcohol usage led to the behaviors which ultimately earned applicant a discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention after reviewing the applicant's DOD and VA health record, and determined the applicant was diagnosed with combat-related PTSD and service connected by the VA, but even after applying liberal consideration found that the seriousness of the applicant's 2nd DUI offense which included minor children present in the vehicle as the applicant's cause for separation is not outweighed by the applicant's PTSD and adjustment disorder. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. 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 the 2nd DUI offense which included minor children present in the vehicle, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's BH diagnosis of combat-related PTSD did not outweigh applicant's 2nd DUI offense due to minor children in the vehicle. 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 AR20210003314 1