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, after his service, he was diagnosed with PTSD from his tours to Iraq. In a records review conducted on 23 November 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 October 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 September 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant violated CENTCOM General Order 1A by consuming alcohol on 19 December 2003. He failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 6 July 2004. The District Court of Geary County, KS, found against him in a suit brought by Collections Unlimited for eight checks written with insufficient funds and ordered him to pay a total amount of $1261.80, including service charges and damages. He failed to terminate Army family housing at Fort Riley, KS, in accordance with AR 210-50 when his dependents no longer resided in his quarters, which he was instructed to do in a memorandum, dated 17 May 2005, from Housing Manager, Fort Riley. He failed to pay his wife one-third of Basic Allowance for Housing 2 (BAH) during the months of May, June, and July 2005, which he was required by AR 608-99 to pay. He allowed a woman not his spouse to live in his family housing quarters. He was counseled on these two misdeeds while home on emergency leave in May 2005. On 25 May 2005, he presented an invalid automobile insurance card to a police officer at Fort Riley. He stole another Soldier’s property, a Play Station Portable, of a value of about $250, on 11 September 2005. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 September 2005, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Date illegible / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 November 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (28 April 2003 – 14 April 2004; 2 February 2005 – 16 October 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, ICM, VUA g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 30 September 2003, for violating CENTCOM General Order 1A, by wrongfully consuming alcohol (24 September 2003). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty for 30 days. The applicant appealed the punishment and the appeal was denied. CG Article 15, dated 2 September 2004 (continuation sheet not in file), for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (6 July 2004). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $312 pay for one month; extra duty for 14 days; and, verbal reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 21 July 2005, for violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully failing to terminate Army family housing (24 May 2005); failing to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully failing to pay his spouse one-third Basic Allowance for Housing 2 (BAH2), $160.30 pay per month (between May 2005 and July 2005); violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully allowing H. S., a woman not his wife, to move into Army family housing without the approval of the Housing Division, Fort Riley (24 May 2005); being derelict in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to maintain valid automobile insurance (24 May 2005); and, making and uttering certain checks (eight checks totaling $181.70) and dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds in his checking account for payment of such checks in full upon their presentment for payment (22 October 2004). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty for 30 days. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 22 September 2005, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 21 July 2005, was vacated for stealing another Soldier’s Play Station Portable of a value of about $250 (11 September 2005). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 Applies to: 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. 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 was diagnosed with PTSD post service and this disorder led to his discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records. Applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA, which can be a mitigating condition under Liberal Consideration. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The VA has found the applicant to be 30% service connected for PTSD. The service connection establishes that the condition existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. Applicant's PTSD mitigates some of his misconduct that was the basis for separation. Given the association between PTSD and substance abuse as well as avoidance, there is a nexus between his wrongfully consuming alcohol as self-medication for his PTSD, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. Therefore, the Board’s Medical Advisor concluded, after applying liberal consideration, that those basis for separation are mitigated because of applicant’s PTSD condition. However, PTSD does not impact one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. The Board’s Medical Advisor concluded after liberally considering all the evidence that violating lawful general regulations, failure to pay spouse BAH, allowing non-spouse to live in government quarters, writing bad checks, presenting an invalid automobile insurance card to a police officer, and theft are not excused or mitigated by applicant’s medical condition. Therefore, these other basis for separation that are not affected by applicant’s medical condition remain valid basis for separation. (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 excused or mitigated offenses of violating lawful general regulations, failure to pay spouse BAH, allowing non-spouse to live in government quarters, writing bad checks, presenting an invalid automobile insurance card, and theft outweighed the applicant’s PTSD condition. b. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and the disorder led to his discharge. The Board determined that PTSD only mitigated part of the basis for separation, and the remaining offenses of violating lawful general regulations, failure to pay spouse BAH, allowing non-spouse to live in government quarters, writing bad checks, presenting an invalid automobile insurance card, and theft were not excused or mitigated by the medical condition, serious and not warranting a discharge upgrade. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 to all the evidence, the applicant’s PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of violating lawful general regulations, failure to pay spouse BAH, allowing non-spouse to live in government quarters, writing bad checks, presenting an invalid automobile insurance card, and theft. The applicant 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 AR20210003346 1