1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 July 2020 b. Date Received: 8 September 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper and inequitable. The applicant constantly drank alcohol while under the legal age in order to cope with being far from home and the unexpected assignment to the Honor Guard unit. After the applicant was transferred to the 106th Medical Detachment, the unit commander failed to refer the applicant to the Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care (SUDCC) program for underage drinking which could have prevented the applicant's second occurrence of underage drinking in December 2018 and separation from the Army. During the time of the second incident (underage drinking and violating curfew), the applicant was experiencing significant personal and family problems (death of brother in December 2018) which affected the applicant's ability to make the right decisions as a Soldier on and off duty. The applicant received a second Article 15 on the same day of the applicant's late brother's birthday on 31 January 2019 (see Article 15 and obituary). Upon receipt of the Article 15, it was given to the applicant by a temporary commander that never told the applicant that they would be undergoing a separation from the Army. In late February 2019, the new commander informed the applicant that they would be processed for separation for the applicant's actions. The Commander, 106th Medical Detachment recommended the applicant for an honorable discharge. An upgrade to honorable would assist the applicant with furthering an educational career. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's contentions, based on the age of the applicant at the time of misconduct, and post-service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in the Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies. 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. The Board determined the RE code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 10 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 April 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 May 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68T10, Animal Care Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) FG Article 15, 24 October 2018, for: (a) Violated a lawful general order by wrongfully being outside of a U.S. military installation, outside of a private residence, or outside a hotel room between the hours of 0100 and 0500 on or about 15 September 2018. (b) Failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 on or about 15 September 2018. (c) Resisted being apprehended by Sergeant First Class J__ H__, an armed forces policeman, a person authorized to apprehend the applicant on or about 15 September 2018. (d) The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; and extra duty and restriction for 13 days. (2) FG Article 15, 31 January 2019, for: (a) Failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 on or about 30 December 2018. (b) Violated a lawful general order by wrongfully being outside of a U.S. military installation, outside of a private residence, or outside a hotel room between the hours of 0100 and 0500 on or about 31 December 2018. (c) The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (3) Receipt For Inmate or Detained Person, 15 September 2018, shows the applicant was charged with failure to obey general order (USFK Curfew Violation) and (Underage Drinking), and resisting apprehension. (4) Developmental Counseling Form, 17 September 2018, shows the applicant would be recommended for an Article 15 for violating policy letter number 31 (General Order Regarding Off-Installation Curfew) and for consuming alcohol underage on 15 September 2018. If this substandard conduct continued, action may be initiated to separate the applicant from the Army per AR 635-200. (5) Law Enforcement Report - 2nd Corrected - Final, 28 September 2018, shows an investigation established the applicant committed the offenses of Failure to Obey General Order - Underage Drinking and Curfew, and resisting apprehension on 15 September 2018. Because the applicant refused to provide a breath specimen, the applicant's commander gave consent for a blood draw. (6) DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 22 October 2018, shows the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 1 October 2018. (7) Receipt For Inmate or Detained Person, 31 December 2018, shows the applicant was charged with failure to obey general order (USFK Curfew Violation) and (Underage Drinking), and resisting apprehension. (8) Developmental Counseling Form, 2 January 2019, to discuss suspension of favorable actions (Flag). If this conduct continued, action may be initiated to separate the applicant from the Army per AR 635-200. (9) Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), 2 January 2019, shows the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 2 January 2019. (10) Report of Toxicology Examination, 10 January 2019, shows the applicant's blood contained 0.239g percent of ethanol. Ethanol was identified and quantitated by headspace gas chromatography flame ionization detection at a limit of quantitation of 0.020g percent. (11) Developmental Counseling Form, 22 February 2019, to discuss recent suspension of favorable actions (Flag). (12) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 6 March 2019, shows the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD, TBI and major depression with negative results. The applicant was currently participating in the SUDCC treatment. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. (13) Letter from Staff Sergeant G__ D__, UNC Honor Guard Company, states the applicant was hand picked to be in SSG D__'s squad, because of the applicant's reputation as being reliable and trustworthy. The applicant was an outstanding Soldier with an outstanding work ethic. (14) Prime for Life certificate from the USAG-Humphreys Army Substance Abuse Program agency, shows the applicant completed the program on 13 March 2019. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4j. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; reference letter; certificate of achievement; Prime for Life Certificate; applicant's brother's obituary. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Working towards an Associates of Arts in Teaching at Palo Alto College with a 4.0 grade point average, to be completed in Fall of 2020. Volunteered at local public elementary schools tutoring and mentoring students one on one. Works as a warehouse associate full time. 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. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) and AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management) both require supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file. e. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Paragraph 2-2 (Notice), stated commanders were to notify the soldier in writing of the following: (a) Provide the basis of the proposed separation, including the circumstances upon which the action was based, and a reference to the applicable regulatory separation provision. (b) The Soldier will be advised of: (c) The Soldier will be further advised of the following rights: * whether the proposed separation could result in discharge, release from active duty to a Reserve Component, or release from custody and control of the Army * the least favorable characterization of service or description of separation he/she could receive * the type of discharge and character of service recommended by the initiating commander and that the intermediate commander(s) may recommend a less favorable type of discharge and characterization of service than that recommended by the initiating commander (d) Further advise the soldier of the following rights: * consult with military or civilian counsel at their own expense * submit statements in their own behalf * obtain copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation * to a hearing before an administrative separation board under section III of this chapter if they had 6 or more years of total active and Reserve service on the date of initiation of recommendation for separation * waive their rights (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) 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. (4) 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. (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 14-12b, 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. f. 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. g. 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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) RE-4 Applies to: 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. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant's AMHRR includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). c. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 2 years, 1 months, 19 days during which the applicant served 1 year, 6 months and 26 days in Korea. The applicant received two FG Record of Proceedings under Article 15 for violating curfew and underage drinking. The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service on 10 August 2019. d. The applicant contends, in effect, after the applicant was transferred to the 106th Medical Detachment, the unit commander failed to refer the applicant to the SUDCC program for underage drinking which could have prevented the applicant's second occurrence of underage drinking in December 2018 and separation from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does not reflect evidence the applicant ever sought assistance. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance such as self-referral to Army Substance Abuse Program. e. The applicant contends, in effect, during the time of the second incident (underage drinking and violating curfew), the applicant was experiencing significant personal and family problems (death of brother in December 2018) which affected the applicant's ability to make the right decisions as a Soldier on and off duty. The applicant states the applicant's issues were never resolved because it was intimidating to go to the chain of command. It was frowned upon to seek medical evaluations or behavioral health during work hours. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. f. The applicant contends, in effect, upon receipt of the second Article 15, it was given to the applicant by a temporary commander that never told the applicant that they would be undergoing a separation from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR shows two Developmental Counseling Forms, 17 September 2018 and 2 January 2019, that state if this conduct continued, action may be initiated to separate the applicant from the Army per AR 635-200. g. The applicant contends, in effect, the Commander, 106th Medical Detachment recommended the applicant for an honorable discharge. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the case separation file with the exception of the separation authority's decision memorandum. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) and AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management) both require supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file. h. The applicant states an upgrade to honorable would assist the applicant with furthering an educational career. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. i. The applicant provided a certificate of achievement for exceptional service in assisting with the Veterinary Service Support Team relocation. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. j. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has not been diagnosed with a potentially mitigating BH condition. While in the Army, he was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse. Post-service, the VA has diagnosed him with Alcohol Dependence and Anxiety DO, unspecified. (Note-applicant's VA diagnosis of Anxiety DO, unspecified is not service connected by the VA.) (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found that there were no potentially mitigating BH conditions diagnosed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, if the applicant was separated for multiple incidents of underage drinking, this would not be mitigated by his in- service diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or by his VA non-service-connected diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence and Anxiety DO, unspecified. (VA BH note dated 30 Oct 2019 indicates that the applicant reported his anxiety symptoms began after he left the service and were due to his difficulty transitioning to civilian life.) (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined there are no mitigating factors for the misconduct of Curfew violation, Underage drinking, resisted arrest - for the aforementioned reason(s). c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, after the applicant was transferred to the 106th Medical Detachment, the unit commander failed to refer the applicant to the SUDCC program for underage drinking which could have prevented the applicant's second occurrence of underage drinking in December 2018 and separation from the Army. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's assertion, age of the applicant, post service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies mitigated the misconduct and warranted an upgrade. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, during the time of the second incident (underage drinking and violating curfew), the applicant was experiencing significant personal and family problems (death of brother in December 2018) which affected the applicant's ability to make the right decisions as a Soldier on and off duty. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's assertion, age of the applicant, post service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies mitigated the misconduct and warranted an upgrade. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, upon receipt of the second Article 15, it was given to the applicant by a temporary commander that never told the applicant that they would be undergoing a separation from the Army. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's assertion, age of the applicant, post service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies mitigated the misconduct and warranted an upgrade. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, the Commander, 106th Medical Detachment recommended the applicant for an honorable discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's assertion, age of the applicant, post service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies mitigated the misconduct and warranted an upgrade. d. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's contentions, based on the age of the applicant at the time of misconduct, and post-service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in the Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies. 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. The Board determined the RE code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because contentions, based on the age of the applicant at the time of misconduct, and post- service accomplishments, elapsed time and changes in the Military Republic of Korea Curfew policies warranted the discharge inequitable. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20210005096 1