1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 July 2020 b. Date Received: 28 July 2020 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 and a narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, one week after his separation he spent time in a mental hospital and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). His separation is linked to an incident which occurred seven months after his return from Afghanistan. He had an undiagnosed PTSD condition which contributed to the incident which led to his separation. He had honorable service and received a valor award for his combat actions. The applicant states he has a successful career in the automotive industry and has recovered financially from losing his job and the court proceedings which he resolved. He purchased a home and is married with children. Due to his discharge, he has not been able to take part in post military career recruiting programs. In a records review conducted on 4 August 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 15 March 2014, the applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and assault and battery when he physically assaulted another Soldier; on or about 15 January 2013, the applicant showed up to his deployment manifest intoxicated and was unable to deploy; and on or about 16 November 2012, the applicant was intoxicated, belligerent, and verbally abusive to a Highland Falls Police Officer while being escorted back to West Point, NY. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NIF (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 21 August 2014 / General, under honorable conditions (6) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 5 December 2014 / General, under honorable conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Appointment Date / Period of Appointment: 22 May 2010 / NIF b. Age at Appointment / Education: 22 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 19A, Armor, General / 4 years, 6 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan 17 January 2013 - 20 September 2013 f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-V Device, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO Medal, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 22 May 2010 - 22 August 2011 / Best Qualified 22 August 2011 - 2 August 2012 / Best Qualified 3 August 2010 - 2 August 2013 / Best Qualified 22 October 2013 - 31 March 2014 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 4 February 2009, reflects the applicant sent out a company-wide email that contained an inappropriate, distasteful attachment. The punishment consisted of 30 hours of extra duty, suspended, to automatically be remitted if not vacated by 14 March 2009. FG Article 15, dated 25 November 2009, reflect the applicant was drunk and disorderly on or about 22 November 2009. The punishment consisted of 80 hours of extra duty; 60 days of restriction; reduction in rank to private first class; withdrawal of all privileges for 60 days; loss of Christmas; and ASAP to full completion. Cadet Observation Report, dated 11 September 2006, reflects the applicant was observed reporting late to class on 7 September 2006. Cadet Observation Report, dated 7 September 2006, reflect the applicant was observed being late to class three times on 11 September 2006. Cadet Observation Report, dated 1 March 2007, reflects the applicant was observed being absent from PL100 and was unexcused on 14 February 2007. Cadet Observation Report, dated 13 October 2009, reflects the applicant was observed missing morning formation on 9 October 2009. A memorandum, Subject: Disciplinary Award No. 119, dated 10 December 2009, reflects the applicant was drunk and showed disorderly conduct on or about 22 November 2009. An inquiry into events occurring at the Paddock Club on the evening of 16-17 November 2012, found that the applicant, along with 5 others, demonstrated poor judgement in various ways and behaved in a manner unbecoming Soldiers and leaders in the U.S. Army. A Criminal Docket - Offenses Report, dated 2 May 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with assault and battery, aggravated; assault and battery (dismissed prior to arraignment); witness/juror/Police/Court Official, intimidate (dismissed prior to arraignment); and assault and battery. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 September 2014, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had a positive screening for PTSD and was referred for a comprehensive PTSD evaluation. A Patient Discharge Form, reflects the applicant was discharged to Boston District Court on 23 January 2015 and was diagnosed with PTSD, alcohol abuse in sustained full remission. The applicant provides a Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision, dated 12 June 2020, which reflects the applicant was awarded a 50-pecent service connection evaluation for PTSD and alcohol use disorder, moderate, in early remission. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Character references-2, personal statement, OERS-4, Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision, medical documents, Documents from separation packet. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has a successful career in the automotive industry and has recovered financially from losing his job and the court proceedings which he resolved. He purchased a home and is married with 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), 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. e. Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign to officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends he had an undiagnosed PTSD condition which contributed to the incident which led to his separation. The applicant's service record contains documentation which shows he had a positive screening for PTSD and was referred for a comprehensive PTSD evaluation. A careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 30 September 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant also contends he had honorable service and received a valor award for his combat actions. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments The applicant requests that his narrative reason for separation be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant states, due to his discharge, he has not been able to take part in post military career recruiting programs. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities 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 applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse and is post-service diagnosed for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? YES. The applicant had pre-enlistment alcohol issues which continued in-service leading to the Alcohol Abuse diagnosis. The applicant also has been service-connected by the VA for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. While liberal consideration was applied, the Board determined the continuation of a documented pattern of alcohol abuse resulting in aggressive behavior beginning pre-enlistment and not PTSD was related to the bar fight in November 2012 and missing formation for deployment in January 2013. While there was no evidence presented to the Board regarding the basis for the PTSD diagnosis, the Board recognized the applicant's wrongful conduct leading to his discharge occurred before his 2013 deployment to Afghanistan. The ADRB further determined that the applicant's post-deployment charges of aggravated assault and assault and battery are not excused or mitigated by PTSD. Specifically, trauma based dissociative episodes involve behavior uncharacteristic of the individual and recreates elements of the original trauma. The Board determined that the evidence did not suggest any trauma that caused the applicant's PTSD was present nor contributed to the applicant's pre-deployment charges. Instead, The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported a determination that the applicant's post-deployment charges were a continuation of a documented pattern of alcohol abuse resulting in aggressive behavior beginning pre-enlistment. Accordingly, the Board could not support a conclusion that there was an excusal or mitigation of the discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse and was post-service connected for PTSD. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that neither alcohol abuse nor PTSD outweigh the applicant's misconduct that was used as the basis for discharge. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends he had an undiagnosed PTSD condition that contributed to the incident, which led to his separation. The applicant's service record shows that he had pre- enlistment alcohol issues and a post service positive screening for PTSD and was referred for a comprehensive PTSD evaluation post-service. The Board determined that the evidence did not suggest any trauma caused the applicant's PTSD was present nor contributed to the applicant's pre-deployment charges. Instead, The Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supported a determination that the applicant's post-deployment charges were a continuation of a documented pattern of alcohol abuse resulting in aggressive behavior beginning pre- enlistment. (2) The applicant contends he had honorable service and received a valor award for his combat actions. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments; however, the Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The Board considered the contentions but denied upgrade to the narrative reason for separation request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the evidence did not suggest any trauma caused the applicant's PTSD was present nor contributed to the applicant's pre-deployment charges. Instead, The Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supported a determination that the applicant's post-deployment charges were a continuation of a documented pattern of alcohol abuse resulting in aggressive behavior beginning pre-enlistment. Accordingly, there is no medical mitigation and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210006012 1