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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was an outstanding Soldier who enlisted during a time of war and served the country with distinction from 2005 to 2012, with more than three years of foreign service. During the applicant's first enlistment, the applicant was divorced and a single parent of a three-year-old daughter with special needs. The child was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). The applicant never should have been stationed at Iwakuni, Japan, because this base offered inadequate support for a single parent with a special-needs child, as required by the EFMP rules, Army Regulation 608-75. The applicant was placed into an impossible situation as a single parent, with a mental health condition, responsible to care for the special-needs child, stationed at a remote base with inadequate support. Command responses were arbitrary and capricious, resulting in career-ending actions. Appropriate alternatives, discharges for the convenience of the government, arbitrarily were ignored, leaving the applicant with an unduly harsh and inequitable other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's background and mental health conditions diminished capability. Further, prior to and during assignment to Iwakuni, the applicant was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, depression, and acute stress disorder. These developmental, emotional, and psychological conditions made it extremely difficult for the applicant to both serve capably and take care of the child alone. The applicant's more than seven years of honorable and faithful service, highlighted by numerous awards and decorations, is not accurately reflected by the discharge. The applicant's remarkable post-service conduct exemplifies character and shows that the misconduct was a product of circumstance and not a reflection on true capability and integrity. Under the factors of the "Wilkie Memo," providing the standards for Boards to grant relief under equity and clemency, the applicant is the ideal candidate for a second chance. Counsel cites various references, to include previous ADRB cases, to support the contentions. The applicant further details the contentions in an affidavit provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 6 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 (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200 / Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 28 July 2011, Family Advocacy and Criminal Investigation Division were notified by summer camp teachers the applicant's child had a large bruise on the child's forearm. After an investigation, the applicant admitted to striking the child on the arm with a belt. The applicant's child suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). On 5 March 2012, the applicant's child reported to personnel at the elementary school being struck with a belt the previous night by the applicant. After an investigation, the applicant admitted striking the child on the arms, legs, and buttocks with a belt after refusing to brush her teeth. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 July 2012, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge. The conditional waiver was denied. On 11 September 2012, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 26 September 2012, 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. On 1 October 2012, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 October 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 June 2008 / 4 years / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by a period of 11 months on 27 January 2012, giving the applicant a new ETS of: 16 May 2013. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68R10, Veterinary Food Inspector / 7 years, 4 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 May 2005 - 16 June 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Japan / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Concern, dated 30 September 2009, reflects the applicant received the letter as a result of an investigation was initiated by the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station Criminal Investigative Division based on a report from the Child Development Center the applicant's child was found to have three bruises marks that appeared to be a result of being struck. The MCAS Crisis Action Team determined the case was unfounded; however, the commander required the applicant to attend classes on parental skills and directed the applicant to reevaluate EFMP situation to determine if Iwakuni was suitable or not for the particular circumstances, if not the command was prepared to transfer the applicant to another location in Japan or initiate a compassionate reassignment. Family Advocacy Program Case Activity Notes between 2009 and 2012, revealed the counseling sessions between the applicant and a licensed clinical social worker, reflecting the applicant's mood at the time of the session (normally depressed); the applicant's concerns regarding the applicant's child and military career; the applicant's chain of command actions; the counselor's assessment; and treatment plan. U.S. Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division, Report of Investigation (Pending), dated 19 August 2011, reflects an investigation was initiated against the applicant (28 July 2011) after the Manager, Family Advocacy Program received notification from two School Age Center employees of noticing an unnatural shaped apparent bruise on the right forearm of the applicant's child. During the interview, the applicant admitted to striking the child. FG Article 15, dated 2 December 2011, for unlawfully striking T.G., the applicant's child under the age of 16 years, on the arms with a belt (27 July 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); extra duty for 7 days; restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service Report of Investigation (Interim), dated 15 March 2012, reflects the applicant was under investigation due to the applicant's child reporting to personnel at the elementary school being struck by a belt wielded by the applicant (4 March 2012). During the interview, the applicant confessed to whipping the child with a belt. FG Article 15, dated 26 April 2012, for unlawfully striking T.G., the applicant's child under the age of 16 years on the arms, legs, and buttocks with a belt (4 March 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 2 October 2012, reflects the administrative separation board found the allegations of the applicant unlawfully striking T.G., the applicant's child under the age of 16 years with a belt on 27 July 2011 and 4 March 2012 were supported by the preponderance of the evidence; and, warranted separation. The separation board recommended the applicant be separated with an other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Four Developmental Counseling Forms, for misconduct related to child abuse. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 4 August 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder and attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity. Report of Medical Examination, dated 10 July 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnosis section: attention deficit disorder/depression. Report of Medical History, dated 11 July 2012, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: chronic, not treated and depression since 2007, well controlled. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 July 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter (change of counsel); attachment to DD Form 293 (Legal Brief) with Appendix 1 and Exhibits A through AG; and, index of exhibits (Exhibits A through R listed); Exhibit S - Court Short Order (custody); Exhibits T and U - three third party letters; Exhibit V - ADHD Literature; Exhibit W - Stars and Stripes Article; Exhibit X - FY15 Army Profile; Exhibit Y (no exhibit); Exhibits Z through AB - three ADRB cases; Exhibit AC - Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject: Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards of Correction of Military/ Naval Records Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations ("Wilkie Memo"); Exhibit AD - third party letter; Exhibit AE - Ms. T.G. High School Transcripts; and, Exhibits AF and AG - Ms. T.G. Award Certificates. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant overcame extreme poverty and homelessness; regained custody of applicant's child and became the person closest to the child; put themselves through school; built a life with family; and, achieved professional success, all while giving back through community service with local church. 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 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 "JKN" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, 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 (Minor Infractions)," and the separation code is "JKN." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, is "JKN." The applicant contends the RE Code should be changed. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, depression, and acute stress disorder and the psychological conditions led to the behavior and ultimately to the discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in- service attention deficit disorder; depression; and adjustment disorder. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 16 July 2012, which indicates a diagnosis of adjustment disorder; the applicant could participate in administrative proceedings; and, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command was arbitrary and capricious for failing to reassign the applicant when it was clear there was an EFMP need according to orders; the situation was never corrected despite command's intentions; and disregarding other more favorable discharge options. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends private actions did not rise to the level of other Soldiers with truly grievous offenses whose cases were handled internally and did not discredit the services. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. 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. The applicant contends overcoming extreme poverty and homelessness; regaining custody of applicant's child, self-paying for school, built a life with the family, and achieved professional success, all while giving back through community service with local church. The third party statements provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health record and determined the applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression, Acute Stress Disorder, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder 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's BH conditions existed during applicant's military. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that none of applicant's BH conditions were associated with the repeated incidents of child abuse that led to the separation. Instead, the documentation indicates that applicant's instances of child abuse that were the basis for separation stemmed from a combination of the applicant's lack of parenting skills, emotional immaturity, and inability to control frustration, none of which are mitigated by applicant's in-service BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's non-medically mitigated offenses of unlawfully striking the applicant's child outweighed the applicant's BH diagnoses of Depression, Acute Stress Disorder, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and SPD code needs to be changed. The Board voted not to change the applicant's narrative reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason for the applicant 's discharge was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, depression, and acute stress disorder and the psychological conditions led to the behavior and ultimately to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during its deliberations, but found that although the applicant has an in service diagnoses of Depression, Acute Stress Disorder, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder, the Board determined the applicant's offenses are non-medically mitigated and the basis of separation is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the command was arbitrary and capricious. The Board considered this contention during its deliberations by reviewing all the evidence, including Letter of Concern, dated 30 September 2009, where commander required the applicant to attend classes on parental skills and directed the applicant to reevaluate EFMP situation to determine if Iwakuni was suitable or not for the particular circumstances, if not the command was prepared to transfer the applicant to another location in Japan or initiate a compassionate reassignment, and concluded there was no arbitrary or capricious command action. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered applicant's quality of service and determined applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By unlawfully striking the child on multiple occasions, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that merits an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends applicant's private actions did not rise to the level of other Soldiers with truly grievous offenses whose cases were handled internally and did not discredit the Services. The Board considered this contention during its deliberations and concluded that applicant's discharge was fair, proper and equitable when looking at applicant's command imposed punishment for unlawfully striking applicant's child multiple times. (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 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 diagnoses of Depression, Acute Stress Disorder, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder did not mitigate the offenses of unlawfully striking the applicant's child on multiple occasions. 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 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 AR20210003336 1