1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 June 2020 b. Date Received: 30 June 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, during the time the applicant was deployed things were really rough to the extent that the applicant was evaluated by mental health. Prior to the events that led to the applicant's discharge, the applicant was not a problem Soldier. The applicant was honestly at one of the lowest points in the applicant's life that still has an effect on the applicant until this very day. The way that the applicant's discharge went was not 100 percent accurate and the applicant wishes that someone would have helped instead of making the applicant out to be such a bad person in order to "get rid of [applicant]." The applicant realized after hearing from this Military Review Board a while back that there were some things such as failure to show for extra duty that was not true. The applicant was never counseled about missing extra duty because the applicant never missed a day. The applicant was wrong for some of the behavior and was beyond willing to do everything asked of the applicant to pay for what was done. The applicant does recall refusing to sign a couple of counselings due to them being made up. The applicant was not in a clear headspace when everything started taking place to be discharged and wishes to have had some sort of support to help fight the unfairness. In addition, the applicant feels to have been unceremoniously kicked out due to being misunderstood and/or not properly diagnosed. Since being out of the military the applicant was diagnosed and rated for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Changing this discharge request could open so many other doors for the applicant to include finishing school. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's pattern of misconduct offenses. 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 reentry 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: 6 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 16 August 2011, the applicant made a false official statement to Sergeant (SGT) M__ B__; on 17 August 2011, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from Major (MAJ) J__ A__; on 18 August the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from MAJ A__; on 18 August 2011, the applicant missed movement to FOB Lagman, Afghanistan, by design; on 18 August 2011, the applicant was absent from place of duty, by taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, Afghanistan, and remained so absent until 19 August 2011; on 19 August 2011, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from MAJ A__; on 5 October 2011, the applicant left post duty without being properly relieved; on 6 October 2011, the applicant failed to report for assigned extra duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 June 2009 / 3 years, 29 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 46Q10, Journalist / 2 years, 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (3 May 2011 - 15 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 September 2011, for being absent from unit on or about 18 August 2011 until on or about 19 August 2011; missing movement for a space available flight to FOB Lagman on or about 18 August 2011; disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer on or about 17, 18 and 19 August 2011; and, with intent to deceive, made an official false statement to SGT B__, on or about 16 August 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $734.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 25 October 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability rating decision, dated 23 August 2022, reflecting the applicant's PTSD rating was increased from 50 percent to 70 percent effective 16 August 2021. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Rating Decision letter; VA Summary of Benefits letter; Disability Benefits Questionnaire; VA medical documents; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is a good law abiding and hardworking citizen and has two children. 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. 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, during the time the applicant was deployed things were really rough to the extent that the applicant was evaluated by mental health and feels to have been unceremoniously kicked out due to being misunderstood and/or not properly diagnosed. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 25 October 2011, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The applicant provided a VA disability rating decision reflecting the applicant's PTSD rating was increased from 50 percent to 70 percent effective 16 August 2021. The applicant contends, in effect, prior to the events that led to the applicant's discharge, the applicant was not a problem Soldier. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, the way that the applicant's discharge went was not 100 percent accurate and the applicant wishes that someone would helped instead of making the applicant out to be such a bad person in order to "get rid of [applicant]." The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends, in effect, to never being counseled about missing extra duty because the applicant never missed a day and recalls refusing to sign a couple of counselings due to them being made up. The applicant's AMHRR reflects a developmental counseling form for failing to report for assigned extra duty on 6 October, which the applicant signed on 9 October 2011. 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: The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Post-service, applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Acute PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant reported a trauma with related symptoms leading to a diagnosis of PTSD while deployed. Given trauma is associated with avoidance and difficulty with authority, the misconduct is mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, during the time the applicant was deployed things were really rough to the extent that the applicant was evaluated by mental health and feels to have been unceremoniously kicked out due to being misunderstood and/or not properly diagnosed. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, prior to the events that led to the applicant's discharge, the applicant was not a problem Soldier. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address it as it was determined that the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, the way that the applicant's discharge went was not 100 percent accurate and the applicant wishes that someone would helped instead of making the applicant out to be such a bad person in order to "get rid of [applicant]." The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, to never being counseled about missing extra duty because the applicant never missed a day and recalls refusing to sign a couple of counselings due to them being made up. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighing the applicant's pattern of misconduct offenses. 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 reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant's failures to report, disobeying a lawful order, missing movement, and false official statement offenses. 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, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210005604 1