1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, the Board should review the applicant’s characterization of service, separation authority, separation code, reentry code, and narrative reason to determine whether they are properly based on standards of equity and propriety. The Board should take into consideration the applicant was never allowed a rehabilitative transfer and the mitigating facts, to include the applicant’s post-service accomplishments. The applicant was attacked by another basic trainee, which left the applicant with a bloodshot eye and heavy bruising, and instead of command conducting a thorough investigation, the applicant received an Article 15. The applicant received minor non-judicial punishment (NJP) as a result of being a new recruit and not understanding how the Army works. In violation of the Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16, the applicant was not recycled for the purpose of rehabilitation and the command did not provide any explanation. The applicant, on occasion, was precluded from receiving legal advice from trial defense service (TDS) and was then forced to make own legal decisions. When legal assistance was finally received, the applicant believed the command retaliated through more severe punishment. The applicant states being evaluated by psychologists at the Department of Veterans Affairs and awarded 10 percent disability from a scar Private (PVT) C.J. left under his eye after the altercation; and, 30 percent disability for post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the fight. The applicant still has some anxiety and trust issues due to the unexpected and unavoidable fight with PVT C.J. The applicant is currently rated at 40 percent disability by the VA, due to the assault. The applicant entered the Army with a Bachelor’s Degree and after discharge, the applicant earned second Master’s Degree and spent approximately seven months performing research in the field of computational physical chemistry with Dr. S.F. and working part time as a laboratory technician at the Texas Plant and Soil Laboratory located in Edinburg, TX. The applicant further details the contentions in application and an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 14 December 2021, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 July 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant repeatedly failed to follow rules and regulations; showed a lack of motivation and integrity; and, received multiple Article 15s for failure to obey orders, falsifying documents, and assault. The applicant’s actions demonstrated unsuitability for the U.S. Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 August 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 August 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 January 2019 / 20 weeks or until complete b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Master’s Degree / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 8 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 18 December 2018 – 27 January 2019 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 22 March 2019, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from Sergeant First Class G.E., a noncommissioned officer, to not remove or keep any ammunition from any range (26 February 2019); and, with intent to deceive, submitting to Staff Sergeant (SSG) K.S., a false DA Form 705 (18 February 2019). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2 and forfeiture of $942 pay for two months. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, demand trial by court-martial, and present matters prior to imposition (22 March 2019). The applicant appealed and submitted additional matters. The proceedings were reviewed by a judge advocate and found to be in accordance with applicable law and regulations. The appeal was denied. The applicant provided a Personnel Action form, dated 28 March 2019, which reflects the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-2, effective: 11 March 2019. The applicant provided a sworn statement from PVT C.J., dated 14 June 2019, which reflects PVT C.J. admitted an argument between the two became heated and the applicant pushed back. PVT C.J. proceeded to hit the applicant in the face and the applicant charged by throwing punches and trying to tackle while trying to push the applicant off to stop the altercation. After the altercation, PVT C.J. noticed the applicant had a cut and a black eye. PVT C.J. gave the applicant a wash cloth to put on the cut and eye, they both shook hands, and agreed to put their hard feelings aside. The applicant provided a sworn statement, dated 16 June 2019, which reflects information similar to PVT C.J.’s statement, but the applicant added the argument began when PVT C.J. and another Soldier started calling the applicant names for not relieving the Soldiers weapons guard. The applicant provided email, dated 21 June 2019, which reflects the applicant was represented by military defense counsel. Counsel believed, regarding the applicant being attacked in the barracks, there was a clean and expeditious way to conclude the event; one to benefit all parties. Counsel requested the applicant be moved to a new company and provided a military protective order against PVT C.J. Counsel stated there were two individuals who witnessed the event and PVT C.J. apologized to the applicant for starting the fight. PVT C.J. admitted to striking the applicant to Drill Sergeant A. Counsel was concerned about drill sergeants making fun of client in public settings and within the applicant’s earshot. The applicant provided a Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 16 July 2019, which reflects the applicant was treated at the Army Community Hospital for the injury hypoesthesia of skin, which injury occurred on 13 June 2019. The form states medical records indicated the applicant was struck in the left infra-orbital region by another Soldier, after an altercation. The applicant had persisting numbness to the left cheek, numbness extended under the eye to the left side of the nose into the left upper lip. The applicant provided U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), Fort Leonard Wood, MO, memorandum dated 16 July 2019, which reflects MEDDAC informed the command a formal LOD investigation must be conducted due to the applicant’s medical records indicating an altercation with another Soldier, which caused the applicant to have hypoesthesia and some mild left conjunctival hemorrhage. Summarized Article 15, dated 17 July 2019, for failing to obey a lawful order from Captain E.C., by wrongfully possessing food items and medication not prescribed by a military doctor (19 June 2019) and unlawfully punching PVT C.J., in the face with a fist (13 June 2019). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days (suspended). The applicant was afforded the opportunity to demand trial by court-martial and present matters. The applicant did not appeal the proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 July 2019, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD, TBI, substance use disorders, depression, and sexual assault. The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative / board proceedings. There was no indication the applicant’s alleged misconduct related to a behavioral health condition. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 26 August 2019, which reflects the applicant requested the investigating officer, 1LT I.E., adjust findings to find the applicant in line of duty. The applicant stated the altercation was not due to own misconduct and was not voluntary. The applicant further detailed the events which led to the altercation. DD Form 214, block 12i (Effective Date of Pay Grade), reflects 22 March 2019. The applicant provided various Inspector General complaint documents: Inspector General Action Request, dated 8 September 2019, reflects the applicant made a complaint against Captain E.C. and Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) S.M. regarding the unfair FG Article 15 hearing due to a falsified DA Form 4187 (date of rank reduction to Private E-2). On 2 December 2019, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Fort Leonard Wood, informed the applicant the matter concerning erroneous information listed in separation packet was under the jurisdiction of the Army Board of Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) and advised the applicant to seek assistance through the ABCMR. On 12 May 2020, the Department of the Army IG informed the applicant that the matter of the falsified document had been addressed by the Fort Leonard Wood IG’s Office and also advised the applicant to contact the ABCMR for redress. IG Action Request, dated 7 February 2020, reflects the applicant made a complaint against Colonel A.H. because applicant was not provided any written notice on approval or denial of the applicant’s LOD appeal, which was submitted to the Investigating Officer First Lieutenant I.E. On 18 March 2020, the OIG, Fort Leonard Wood, responded the office conducted a thorough inquiry and determined the applicant’s rebuttal was considered, but the investigating officer determined there was not enough evidence to change the recommendation to the next higher command in the finding. The command was not obligated to respond and the OIG would take no further action. IG Action Request, dated 9 February 2020, reflects the applicant made a complaint to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) IG to investigate the double standard when as it pertained to falsified documents. IG Action Request, dated 2 May 2020, reflects the applicant made a complaint to the TRADOC IG to appeal to LTC M.S. finding from the inquiry of the applicant’s LOD appeal, which was denied by the IO 1LT I.E. On 29 July 2020, the TRADOC IG responded their office conducted a due process review made by Fort Leonard Wood OIG of the applicant’s LOD appeal and found all the applicant’s issues were addressed and further action was not required. Fort Leonard Wood OIG letter, dated 1 March 2021, reflects the letter was in response to the applicant’s 30 October 2020, complaint concerning alleged misconduct of CPT I.E. The OIG conducted a preliminary inquiry and determined there was no violation of Army regulation and policy and their office would take no further action pertaining to the applicant’s assistance request at the time. Three Developmental Counseling Forms for pending separation and/or recommending separation due to misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 April 2019, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with problems of adjustment to life-cycle transitions. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The medical examiner recommended the applicant return to duty subject to Article 15 sanctions. After the applicant returned to the unit, the command informed the behavioral health provider of their decision to pursue a chapter discharge against the applicant due to significant misconduct issues and the provider supported the decision. The applicant provided four VA rating decisions, which show the applicant was rated 30 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (claimed as acquired psychiatric condition due to assault); 10 percent for trigeminal nerve disorder, left side (claimed as nerve damage); and, 0 percent for scar to left cheek; a combined total of 40 percent. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; counsel memorandum, self-authored statement; DD Form 214; case separation packet; Enlisted Record Brief; Report of Mental Status Evaluation; FG Article 15, with appeal/rebuttal matters; Personnel Action form; self- authored letter; four VA rating decisions; Inspector General complaint documents; and, LOD determination documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he earned second Master’s Degree and spent approximately seven months performing research in the field of computational physical chemistry with Dr. S.F. and working part time as a laboratory technician at the Texas Plant and Soil Laboratory located in Edinburg, TX. 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. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 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 14-12b, is “JKA.” The applicant contends the separation authority should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200. AR 635-5 provides the separation authority is obtained from the regulatory or directives authorizing the separation. The applicant contends the reentry eligibility (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 beings rated by the VA with 40 percent disability for PTSD and a scar stemming from an assault. The applicant provided numerous VA rating decisions indicating being rated 30 percent disability for PTSD; 10 percent trigeminal nerve disorder, left side; and 0 percent for scar to his left cheek. The applicant also provided documents regarding the incident to show injury was due to an altercation with another Soldier. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 19 April 2019, which diagnosed the applicant with problems of adjustment to life-cycle transitions. The applicant underwent another MSE on 29 July 2019 and it did not indicate any diagnosis. The MSEs indicate the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSEs were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command violated Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16, because the applicant did not receive a rehabilitative transfer. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant contends, did not receive a fair trial at his FG Article 15 hearing with LTC S.M. due to a falsified DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), reflecting reduction to E-2 on 11 March 2019, a date prior to the Article 15 being imposed. This action played a significant factor in influencing the outcome of proceedings. The AMHRR reflects the punishment was imposed on 22 March 2019 and the DA Form 4187 was signed on 28 March 2019, subsequent to the Article 15 hearing. After the applicant’s discharge, the applicant submitted various IG complaints and the issue of the falsified DA Form 4187 was addressed. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant is advised to contact ABCMR for further assistance. The applicant’s contention regarding the fairness of the ART 15 hearing does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends did not receive due process when it came to being disciplined under the UCMJ. The applicant contends self-defense from the attack and the command did not properly investigate the matter, but punished the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ. The applicant provided documents, to include a statement from the Soldier involved in the altercation. The Soldier admitted to pushing the applicant and striking the applicant in the face, after the applicant pushed him back and then the applicant started striking the Soldier repeatedly. The applicant provided documents to show the applicant was provided the opportunity to consult with counsel after the incident. The AMHRR shows the applicant was afforded the opportunity to demand trial by court-martial; to present matters in defense extenuation, and/or mitigation; and to appeal. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel in the FG Article 15 proceedings and the proceedings were reviewed by a judge advocate and found to be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the actions which led to his minor non-judicial punishment were due to being a new recruit and not understanding how the Army worked. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. 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 AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends former commander afforded other Soldiers the opportunity to recycle/new start in order to complete basic training. 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 good service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The applicant contends after discharged earned second Master’s Degree and spent approximately seven months performing research in the field of computational physical chemistry with Dr. S.F. and working part time as a laboratory technician at the Texas Plant and Soil Laboratory located in Edinburg, TX. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive behavior and PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate failure to follow rules and regulations, failure to obey orders, falsifying documents, and assault which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board arrived at this finding based upon applicant records contains post service BH diagnoses of Obsessive compulsive behavior and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board arrived at this finding based upon considering liberal guidance the applicant’s PTSD is only a partially mitigating factor for his misconduct. While failure to follow orders can be part of the sequela of PTSD, falsifying documents, and assault is not. Falsifying Documents is a conscious and willful act that does not fall within the DSM 5 diagnostic criteria of PTSD, therefore there is no nexus between PTSD and falsification of documents. (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 failure to follow rules and regulations, failure to obey orders, falsifying documents, and assault outweighed the applicant’s obsessive compulsive behavior and PTSD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason/SPD code for the discharge should be changed to Secretarial Authority. The Board determined that the applicant did not provide evidence that counters the basis for separation or mitigating circumstances. The separation file in the AMHRR indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and the Board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (2) The applicant contends the separation authority should be changed. The board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200. AR 635-5 provides the separation authority is obtained from the regulatory or directives authorizing the separation. (3) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board voted not to change 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. (4) The applicant contends he was rated by the VA with 40 percent disability for PTSD and a scar stemming from an assault. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. (5) The applicant contends the command violated Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-16, because the applicant did not receive a rehabilitative transfer. The Board determined that the applicant did not provide evidence that counters the basis for separation or mitigating circumstances for the Board to consider. The separation file in the AMHRR indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and the Board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (6) The applicant contends, he did not receive a fair trial at his FG Article 15 hearing with Lieutenant Colonel S.M. due to a falsified DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action). The Board determined that the applicant did not provide evidence that counters the basis for separation or mitigating circumstances for the Board to consider. The separation file in the AMHRR indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and the Board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (7) The applicant contends he did not receive due process when it came to being disciplined under the UCMJ. The Board determined that the applicant did not provide evidence that counters the basis for separation or mitigating circumstances for the Board to consider. The separation file in the AMHRR indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and the Board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (8) The applicant contends self-defense from the attack and the command did not properly investigate the matter, but instead punished the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ. The separation file in the AMHRR indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and the Board determined the command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with disputes. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (9) The applicant contends the actions which led to the minor non-judicial punishment was due to being a new recruit and not understanding how the Army worked. The Board determined the applicant met all requirements of service to include age and aptitude testing. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful discretion and incomprehension does not excuse the misconduct. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (10) The applicant contends his former commander afforded other Soldiers the opportunity to recycle/new start in order to complete basic training. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with disputes. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (11) The applicant contends good service. The Board 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. By the failure to follow rules and regulations, failure to obey orders, falsifying documents, and assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (12) The applicant contends after discharge earned second Master’s Degree and spent approximately seven months performing research in the field of computational physical chemistry with Dr. S.F. and working part time as a laboratory technician at the Texas Plant & Soil Laboratory located in Edinburg, TX. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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 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 obsessive compulsive behavior and PTSD did not mitigate the offenses of failure to follow rules and regulations, failure to obey orders, falsifying documents, and assault. 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 AR20210003338 1