1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 13 October 2020 b. Date Received: 21 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant suffered several mental breakdowns during service. The applicant was unhappy with the assignment in Germany and the command offered no help. The applicant informed the command of suicidal thoughts and was scheduled for a behavioral health appointment. The applicant attempted suicide and was taken to a German mental health institution after becoming combative. The applicant received treatment and was released to the unit. The applicant requested to be reassigned but the request was denied. The applicant continued to receive treatment from BH but did not feel it was helping. The applicant BH counselor contacted the unit based on the applicant becoming emotional and the applicant was admitted into the hospital for a night. The next day the applicant was informed of the separation. The separation process was rushed and there was no time to plan. The applicant suffered from anxiety and depression which was not addressed until after the unit perceived the applicant to be a problem. The applicant had honorable service. (The applicant’s complete statement is available for the board’s review) b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 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 / Under Honorable Conditions (General) b. Date of Discharge: 30 July 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 June 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 26 April 2019, the applicant struck SGT E twice in the chest with a closed fist; on or about 1 March 2019, the applicant was disrespectful to Military Police Officers; on or about 25 March 2019, the applicant assaulted medical personnel; between on or about 1 March 2019 and 26 April 2019, the applicant disobeyed several lawful orders given by noncommissioned officers. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 July 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 July 2019 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 June 2018 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 68E, / 1 year, 1 month, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 22 April 2019, page 1, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder wit anxiety and depressed mood, suicidal ideations and attempts and VA Rating Decision, 23 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted, in part, service-connection for adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depressive disorder (claimed as PTSD) with an evaluation of 70-percent effective 31 July 2019. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, letters of support-3, DD Form 214, VA Rating Decision, Documents from separation packet 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. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests the applicant’s narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is “Misconduct (Serious Offense)” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635- 5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the applicant suffered from anxiety and depression which was not addressed until after the unit perceived the applicant to be a problem. The applicant’ provides an MSE, 22 April 2019, which supports a diagnosis of in-service adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, suicidal ideations, and attempts. The applicant also provides a VA Rating Decision, 23 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted, in part, service- connection for adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depressive disorder (claimed as PTSD) with an evaluation of 70-percent effective 31 July 2019 and Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 22 April 2019, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant states there was honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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: Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder traits. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant had an Adjustment Disorder diagnosis in-service with notation of ongoing support for Personality Disorder traits. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant was given ongoing and full assessments with agreement her misconduct was purposeful and driven by characterological difficulties rather than a mental illness. Specific to the diagnosis, an Adjustment Disorder reflects difficulty managing stressors but does not rise to the level of a psychiatric illness in which an individual is unable to make conscious choices knowing right from wrong and consequences. It is more likely than not the applicant’s misconduct is secondary to the referenced Personality Disorder. Although a Personality Disorder provides context, it is not mitigating as the individual still has intact cognitive processes which are actually being engaged to determine which actions to take. (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 Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder traits outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – assaulting medical personnel, disobeying lawful orders given by NCOs, striking an NCO twice in the chest with a closed fist – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the applicant suffered from anxiety and depression which was not addressed until after the unit perceived the applicant to be a problem. The Board considered this contention and determined that the current discharge was proper and equitable based on the only medical diagnosis documented of Adjustment disorder and Personality disorder not mitigating the misconduct. 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. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder traits did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of assaulting medical personnel, disobeying lawful orders given by NCOs, striking an NCO twice in the chest with a closed fist. 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 AR20210006140 1