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 incident occurred after his return from Afghanistan deployment. The applicant suffered from symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but the applicant was unaware he suffered from this disorder. This was an isolated incident and the first time the applicant had ever been in violation of civilian law during the 13 years he served in the military. Due to the applicant's behavioral responses associated with PTSD, when the applicant was touched and abruptly approached by police officers, the applicant experienced flashback and responded as if threatened. Despite the applicant being awaken from a sleeping state by being abruptly touched without his permission, the applicant's behaviors never resulted in any form of physical aggressive behaviors towards others. The applicant's behaviors were however verbally aggressive. The applicant was never provided the opportunity to explain the circumstances, from his perspective, around the accusations he was charged with. The applicant believes his discharge was unjust considering the undiagnosed mental health issues he was experiencing and the manner in which the Columbus Police Department handled the situation. The applicant engaged in Mental Health services following the event, while on active duty and was later diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant served his country for 13 years and made the ultimate sacrifice in order to defend his country, which was his life. He believes the events surrounding his discharge do not equal or reflect the time and sacrifice provided in service to his country. In a records review conducted on 9 December 2021, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (IPV Victim, OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 July 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 May 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 2 December 2018, the applicant was in a verbal altercation with his fiancé Ms. A.R. that turned physical when the applicant threw her down the stairs multiple times and pushed her, causing her to bleed from her nose. During the altercation, the applicant damaged multiple items of non-military property, resulting in damage of an amount less than $500. The applicant was apprehended by the Columbus Police Department for battery (Family Violence) against Ms. A.R. and for criminal damage to property with a value of approximately $1,000. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 May 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 14 June 2019, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 June 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 April 2016 / 3 years / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by a period of 19 months on 31 May 2017, giving the applicant a new ETS of: 6 November 2020. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 89B20, Ammunition Specialist / 13 years, 9 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 September 2005 - 6 April 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 February 2007 - 23 May 2008; 9 March 2018 - 18 November 2018); Iraq (1 August 2011 - 31 December 2011); Kuwait (14 April 2012 - 3 January 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-3, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM- 2CS, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 10 August 2015 - 8 August 2016 / Highly Qualified 9 August 2016 - 8 August 2017 / Qualified 9 August 2017 - 19 October 2018 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Protective Order, dated 2 December 2018, reflects the applicant was issued the Order due to domestic violence and the protected person was Ms. A.R. Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 17 December 2018, reflects it was reported by the Columbus Police Department the applicant was arrested for Battery (Family Violence) and Damage to Property 2nd degree (2 December 2018). Memorandum, subject: Commander Notification of Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Case Review Committee (CRC) Incident Determination, dated 12 February 2019, reflects the applicant was identified as the offender in an allegation of adult physical abuse and the applicant was placed on a treatment plan. Memorandum, subject: Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (CRC) Incident Determination, dated 12 February 2019, reflects the applicant was identified as the victim in an allegation of adult physical abuse met the criteria for physical abuse and the applicant was placed on a treatment plan. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 13 March 2019, reflects the applicant was arrested for battery and criminal destruction of property. On 2 December 2018, officers from Columbus Police Department were called to the applicant's residence for a report domestic dispute. When they arrived at the applicant's residence, the officers witnessed Ms. A.R. with blood coming from her nose, a result of the applicant battering her. Ms. A.R. informed the police the applicant threw her down the stairs multiple times and pushed her; the applicant ripped the door off the hinges as he attempted to attack her further; and, destroyed other items in the home. Additionally, the applicant became belligerent with police officers, purposely flipping a table while he was being arrested. The applicant submitted statement on his behalf. FG Article 15, dated 18 April 2019, for acting in an aggressive and disrespectful manner towards Officer C.C. of the Columbus Police Department (2 December 2018), such conduct being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,698.00 pay (suspended); extra duty for 45 days (suspended); and, an oral reprimand. The applicant submitted a statement on his behalf. Four Developmental Counseling Forms, for misconduct relating to the applicant's arrest for battery (family violence) and criminal damage to property 2nd degree. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 February 2019, reflects the licensed counseling psychologist determined the applicant required further assessment to determine behavioral health medical readiness status and recommended command referral to Behavioral Health. The applicant was diagnosed with threat of job loss. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was not psychiatrically cleared for chapter proceedings in accordance with AR 635-200. The applicant provided medical documents, dated 28 October 2019, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and VA Medical Record. 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 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. Paragraph 5-3 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 memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. (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-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. DISCUSSION 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 he suffered from PTSD. The applicant provided VA medical documents indicating he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 28 February 2019, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with threat of job loss. The applicant was not psychiatrically cleared for chapter proceedings in accordance with AR 635-200, but on 28 February 2019 a Chapter 14 Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) was performed on applicant that did not list any BH diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends he was not provided the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the incident from his perspective. The applicant voluntarily waived the administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The board would have provided the applicant an opportunity to submit matters on his behalf and representation by military counsel. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. 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 while on active duty, applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and was the victim and perpetrator of IPV. Post-service, he has been diagnosed and service connected by the VA with PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and was the victim and perpetrator of IPV while on active duty. Post-service, applicant has been diagnosed and service connected by the VA with PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that applicant's PTSD and history of being a victim of IPV partially mitigated the applicant's battery and criminal destruction of property because of the proximity to the cause of applicant's PTSD. Further, the Board's Medical Advisor opined that the applicant being assaulted by his IP on the night of the incident also partially mitigated those two basis for separation. However, the Board's Medical Advisor did opine the applicant's aggression towards law enforcement was not mitigated by applicant's PTSD or other medical condition or experience. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the partially mitigated basis for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention as valid and determined that this condition partially mitigated applicant's assault battery (Family Violence) and criminal damage to property as basis for separation but did not mitigate applicant's aggression towards law enforcement. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention as a contributing factor in its deliberations that lead to a vote to upgrade the characterization to Honorable. (3) The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings that lead to a vote to upgrade the characterization to Honorable. (4) The applicant contends he was not provided the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the incident from his perspective. The issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change. However, the Board voted to upgrade the characterization to Honorable based upon other factors surrounding the circumstances of the case. c. The majority of the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses that are relatable to basis for separation). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the Board considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's basis for separation along with applicant's length, quality and combat-related service, and deemed the characterization inequitable. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210003337 8