1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in 2011, the applicant was suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder and work related stress which made it impossible for the applicant to perform duties as a Soldier while on active duty. The applicant was receiving counseling at Behavioral Health at Fort Carson and suffered from severe stomach pains; a biopsy was performed and the applicant was found to have severe erosions of the applicant's gastric atrium. The applicant found it hard to get up every day and perform duties as a Soldier. The applicant could not cope and had suicidal ideations so the applicant requested to be chaptered. The applicant tried to commit suicide and spent one week at the mental hospital. The applicant reached out to superiors but did not receive any assistance or guidance. First Sergeant M. suggested the applicant hold off on the applicant's voluntary chapter to see if things would get better but they became worse. The applicant decided to separate early due to mental issues. In 2011, the applicant was assaulted by Specialist B.M. when the Soldier punched the applicant, which left the applicant unconscious for several minutes and multiple fractures to his orbital bone and jaw. The applicant believes this played a huge factor in the deterioration of the applicant's mental health while in the service. The applicant believes he put his time in as a Soldier and the contended discharge does not represent the applicant or the conditions faced. The applicant continues to receive therapy at the Denver VA Hospital and has been prescribed anti-depressants and was rated 60 percent disabled. The applicant worked hard for everything the applicant had to do in the military and the laws in regards to liberal considerations applies to the applicant based on the applicant's mental condition. In a records review conducted on 13 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 February 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 12W10, Carpentry and Masonry Specialist / 3 years, 2 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 September 2009 - 15 June 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 110-0045, dated 19 April 2012, reflects applicant's date of discharge as 26 April 2012. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), reflects the form was authenticated by the applicant's signature and the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of the following documents: Physical Profile, dated 2 November 2011, reflecting the applicant had the medical condition of depression. Womack Army Medical Center Gastroenterology Service medical document reflecting the applicant was found to have erythematous duodenopathy and non-bleeding erosive gastropathy. Cedar Springs Hospital documentation reflecting the applicant was admitted on 26 October 2011 for psychiatric evaluation due to suicidal ideations and diagnosed with depression and work related stress. The applicant reported symptoms of PTSD and he was punched in the face which resulted in a broken cheek bone. The Evans Army Community Hospital diagnosed the applicant with: Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified. The applicant was discharged on 31 October 2011. VA disability rating decision, dated 18 April 2013, reflecting the applicant was 50 percent disability for PTSD with mood disorder, not otherwise specified, with possible psychotic and hypomanic symptoms and 10 percent disability peptic ulcer disease. VA medical records to include Problem List (3258 pages), dated 16 December 2021, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with: Traumatic Brain Injury with loss of consciousness (onset 2011); Chronic PTSD (diagnosed 2013); Generalized Anxiety Disorder; and, Major Depressive Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; two DD Forms 293; two self-authored statements; VA disability rating decision; VA medical documents (over 3258 pages); in-service medical documents; "Liberal Considerations" literature. 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 14-12c 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). 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's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature and the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends suffering from PTSD and TBI which affected the applicant's behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant provided in-service medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with depression, not otherwise specified; and, Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified and the applicant showed symptoms of PTSD. The applicant provided VA medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with TBI with loss of consciousness; chronic PTSD; PTSD with mood disorder, not otherwise specified, with possible psychotic and hypomanic symptoms; generalized anxiety disorder; and, major depressive disorder. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the chain of command did not assist with the applicant's mental health conditions. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was provided medical treatment and admitted into the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considers the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service during deliberation. 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 found the applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression and is service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression and is service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor could not opine, even with liberal consideration of all the evidence, whether or not the applicant's service related PTSD, or other medical condition is a mitigating factor for the applicant's basis for separation without knowing the actual basis of separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD and TBI which affected the applicant's behavior and led to the discharge. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records and found the applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression and is service connected by the VA for combat-related PTSD. The VA health records also diagnosis applicant with TBI. While the Board recognized applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses from the records and evidence, the Board could not determine whether or not any medical condition outweighed a particular basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends the chain of command did not assist with the applicant's mental health conditions. The Board considered this contention during its deliberation but concluded the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that any of applicant's command actions were arbitrary or capricious. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered applicant's quality of service and determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the presumption of government regularity supports a conclusion that 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, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline, and as a result of applicant's misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined that 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 contentions 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, a medical mitigation could not be determined without knowing applicant's basis of separation. 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 AR20210003317 1