1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 July 2020 b. Date Received: 21 July 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 was unfairly treated upon the discharge and feels it was racially motivated. The applicant was under mental health care and was often under the influence of medications and sometimes couldn’t recall certain things. The applicant was going through an unprecedented amount of stress and discomfort during the time of and up to the discharge. The applicant was arrested three time but never convicted of anything. There was honorable service although there were some mishaps. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 July 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 September 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant disobeyed a noncommissioned officer on or about 18 February 2016; on or about 18 March 2016, the applicant assaulted SCP W; on or about 8 July 2016, the applicant was disrespectful to a commissioned officer; on or about 8 July 2016, the applicant disobeyed a commissioned officer; on or about 13 July 2016, the applicant was disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer; and on or about 13 July 2016, the applicant communicated a threat to a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 22 September 2016, the applicant declined the opportunity to speak with an attorney. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 September 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 April 2014 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, Parachutist Badge g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 23 March 2016, reflects the applicant disobeyed a lawful order on or about 18 February 2016 and on or about 18 March 2016, the applicant assaulted SPC W. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2 and extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 15 September 2016, reflects the applicant was disrespectful towards a commissioned officer on or about 8 July 2016; failed to obey a lawful command from a commissioned officer on or about 8 July 2016; was disrespectful on deportment towards a noncommissioned officer on or about 13 July 2016; and on or about 13 July 2016, the applicant communicated a threat towards a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $783 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 14 November 2016; extra duty for 45 days; restriction for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 14 November 2016; and an oral reprimand. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE) dated 4 August 2016, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in any administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. There is no diagnosis listed on the MSE. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 29 June 2020, which reflects the applicant has an evaluation of bipolar II disorder (previously rated as mental condition with depression and anxiety), which was 30 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective 2 March 2020. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, VA Rating Decision, VA Letter, dated 14 July 2020, list of character references, applicant’s narrative paper on discipline in the military. 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 the applicant was unfairly treated upon the discharge and feels it was racially motivated. The applicant was arrested three time but never convicted of anything. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, the applicant has provided no evidence that the applicant should not be held responsible for the misconduct. The applicant was under mental health care and was often under the influence of medications and sometimes couldn’t recall certain things and the applicant was going through an unprecedented amount of stress and discomfort during the time of and up to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 4 August 2016, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in any administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 29 June 2020, which reflects the applicant has an evaluation of bipolar II disorder (previously rated as mental condition with depression and anxiety), which was 30 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective 2 March 2020. The applicant states there was honorable service although there were some mishaps. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 28.1332. 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 held in- service diagnoses of Other Depressive Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder. Applicant was both the offender of spousal abuse and child neglect in 2015 and reported victim in 2014. Post-service, the applicant was initially service connected for Mood Disorder NOS. Applicant is currently service connected for Bipolar Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Other Depressive Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder. Applicant was both the offender of spousal abuse and child neglect in 2015 and reported victim in 2014. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the diagnoses of Other Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder do not excuses or mitigate the applicant’s offenses of assault, failure to obey lawful orders, and communicating a threat as these conditions do not impair one’s ability to make conscious choices understanding right from wrong. Additionally, although the initial service-connected condition, Mood Disorder NOS, could contribute to reactivity, there is no support in the separation file or medical records that the applicant was acting impulsively without awareness of the situation, triggers, and his actions. Rather, it is more likely than not that characterological traits contributed to the misconduct. However, while a Personality Disorder would provide context, it does not impair an individual’s ability to make purposeful choices with full knowledge of right, wrong, and consequences. (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 Other Depressive Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – assault, disrespect to commissioned and noncommissioned officers, and communicating a threat – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant was under mental health care and was often under the influence of medications and sometimes couldn’t recall certain things and the applicant was going through an unprecedented amount of stress and discomfort during the time of and up to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Other Depressive Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – assault, disrespect to commissioned and noncommissioned officers, and communicating a threat. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was unfairly treated upon the discharge and feels it was racially motivated. The applicant was arrested three time but never convicted of anything. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. 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 Other Depressive Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, and Adjustment Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of assault, disrespect to commissioned and noncommissioned officers, and communicating a threat. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding the separation being racially motivated and found that the totality of the available evidence does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20210006097 1