1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 29 September 2020 b. Date Received: 5 October 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant served honorably but the applicant’s behavior changed towards the end of the applicant’s career which led to the separation. The applicant was suffering from major depressive disorder which led the applicant to make some bad decisions. The applicant condition went undiagnosed for most of the applicant’s career because the applicant believed applicant could handle it. The applicant allowed the depression to get worse and the applicant became more depressed and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The applicant takes responsibility for the actions which led to the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 November 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 March 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: On or about 30 June 2018, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, while operating the vehicle the applicant struck a mailbox and a culvert and fled the scene. The applicant was taken to seek medical care at Tennova Medical Center where the applicant became belligerent, yelling and cursing at the officers and medical staff. On or about 22 March 2019, the applicant operated a motor vehicle wile under the influence of alcohol, while operating the vehicle the applicant struck another vehicle and fled the scene. (3) Recommended Characterization: The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 October 2019 / The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a General, (under Honorable Conditions) discharge. / 6 November 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 February 2020, the applicant waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 February 2020 / General, (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 May 2017 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / Associate Degree / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 91E30, Allied Trade Specialist / 9 years, 8 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 July 2010 – 24 May 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, MUC, AGCM-3, GWOTSM, NDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Driver and Mechanic Badge- Mechanic, Expert Marksmanship BDGE-Carbine Bar g. Performance Ratings: 11 February 2017 – 10 February 2018 / Highly Qualified 11 February 2018 – 10 February 2019 / Qualified 11 February 2019 – 10 February 2020 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GOMOR, 16 August 2018, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for the reprehensible conduct of driving while under the influence of alcohol, in Tennessee, on 30 June 2018. According to the Montgomery County Affidavit of Complaint, an officer responded to a report of a vehicle running off the roadway into a residential yard, striking a mailbox and culvert. Upon arrival, the applicant had left the scene, but the officer observed a bloody air bag and shoes on the driver’s sideboard. Shortly thereafter, the applicant contacted someone stating the applicant was looking for the applicant’s vehicle and was not aware of where the applicant was. The applicant was found walking the neighborhood, extremely intoxicated, bloody, and with no shoes. The officer observed the applicant with bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteady. After being taken to Tennova Medical Center, the applicant started yelling and cursing. After the officer and the medical staff attempted to get the applicant to lower voice, the applicant was also charged with disorderly conduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides in-service medical records reflecting a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild and other specified anxiety disorders. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, medical documents. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 14-12c, states 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. 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant served honorably but the applicant’s behavior changed towards the end of the applicant’s career which led to the separation. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was suffering from major depressive disorder which led the applicant to make some bad decisions. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental health diagnosis, but the applicant does provide in-service medical records reflecting a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild, and other specified anxiety disorders. The applicant contends, in effect, the condition went undiagnosed for most of the applicant’s career because the applicant believed applicant could handle it. The applicant allowed the depression to get worse and the applicant became more depressed and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The applicant takes responsibility for the actions which led to the discharge. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 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 the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); mild TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found MDD and mild TBI were both diagnosed while applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, MDD which mitigates some of his misconduct. The diagnosis of MDD primarily mitigates the applicant’s 22 March 2019 arrest for DUI. The diagnosis of MDD does not mitigate the applicant’s other DWI arrest which occurred on 30 June 2018, almost a year before he was diagnosed with MDD. While the applicant’s diagnosis of MDD mitigates his March 2019 DWI, it does not mitigate the applicant fleeing the scene of the crime given that MDD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder and mild TBI outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – DUIs- for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant served honorably but the applicant’s behavior changed towards the end of the applicant’s career which led to the separation. The Board considered this contention as well as the applicant’s statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct and determined these did not outweigh the multiple aggravated DUIs and therefore the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was suffering from major depressive disorder which led the applicant to make some bad decisions. The Board considered this contention and acknowledged the applicant’s major depressive disorder diagnosis. However, the Board’s medical advisor determined that the 2018 DUI was not mitigated and does not mitigate the applicant fleeing the scene of the crime in 2019 given that MDD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the condition went undiagnosed for most of the applicant’s career because the applicant believed applicant could handle it. The applicant allowed the depression to get worse and the applicant became more depressed and began to self-medicate with alcohol. The Board considered this contention and determined that despite the applicant’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder, fleeing the scene of a crime is not mitigated, and therefore the discharge is proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of multiple aggravated DUIs. 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, as 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 AR20210005175 1