1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 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, an honorable discharge will help the applicant continue in a career and receive educational benefits. The applicant have fulfilled a promise to serve the United States Army through the full 4 year contract. While in service, the applicant had a few personal hardships in life that caused the applicant to battle depression. Battling depression, while serving in the military, all became too much for the applicant which led the applicant to make a few bad decisions that the applicant regret. Although the applicant did wrong at the end of the contract, the applicant still made accomplishments while serving. The applicant served at Camp Humphreys, South Korea and at Fort Polk, LA, where the applicant received many awards, promotions, great physical training scores, and good conduct. The applicant remained humble and strong throughout the applicant's military contract. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder due to Intimate Partner Violence (with likely Military Sexual Trauma) outweighed the applicant's drug abuse, assault, breaking restriction, and false official statement offenses. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 December 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 November 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol on a company urinalysis conducted on 30 September 2019. The following misconduct may not be used for separation but may be considered for characterization of service in accordance with paragraphs 1-15 and 3-5 of AR 635-200: The applicant assaulted Specialist (SPC) A__ H__ on or about 1 May 2019. The applicant made a false official statement to SPC A__ V__ on or about 2 May 2019. The applicant failed to obey two lawful orders given to the applicant by Captain A__ H__ on 3 May 2019 and 10 May 2019. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 November 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 November 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 January 2016 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 June 2019, for: On or about 3 May 2019, disobeyed a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer, to wit; Restriction On-Post Order, dated 2 May 2019. On or about 10 May 2019, disobeyed a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer, to wit: Restriction On-Post Order, dated 2 May 2019. On or about 2 May 2019, with intent to deceive, make to another Soldier, official statements, to wit: "[Applicant] never went to SPC W__, T__ house" and "[Applicant] left post around 7:20 p.m. and again at 9:00 p.m. on 1 May 2019," which statements were totally false, and were then known by the applicant to be so false. On or about 1 May 2019, unlawfully hit SPC A__ H__ in the face with the applicant's fist. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and extra duty for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 14 November 2019, for wrongfully using tetrahydrocannabinol, a Schedule 1 controlled substance between on or about 31 August 2019 and on or about 30 September 2019. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $840.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Law Enforcement Report - 1st - Interim, dated 2 May 2019, reflects an investigation began when it was reported that the applicant committed assault on another Soldier and fled from the scene on 1 May 2019. Receipt for Inmate or Detained Person, dated 2 May 2019, reflects the applicant was placed under custody for assault and obstruction of justice, however the applicant was released to the chain of command. Memorandum, Restriction On-Post (Fort Polk, LA) Order, dated 2 May 2019, reflects the applicant was ordered by the commander to immediately stay on-post (Fort Polk, LA). There was no exception to this Restriction Order, and it was to remain in effect until it was rescinded. If the applicant was to violate this order in any manner the applicant could face disciplinary action. The applicant and the commander signed this memorandum. Physical Security Specialist (Access Control) Directorate of Emergency Services Visitor Control Center email, dated 15 May 2019, reflects the applicant entered post on 2, 3, and 10 May 2019 during the restriction period of 2-17 May 2019. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 22 May 2019, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of an adverse action (AA) flag for various acts of misconduct. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 8 October 2019, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 15 (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 30 September 2019. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 October 2019, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), with negative results. The medical records did not contain substantial evidence that the applicant currently met criteria for a condition requiring referral to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 10 October 2019, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of an involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) flag and notification of intent to separate for testing positive on a urinalysis. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 4 November 2019, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of an adverse action (AA) flag for testing positive on a urinalysis. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 11 December 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 4 November 2019, involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 4 November 2019, and drug abuse adverse action (UA), effective 10 October 2019; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code "L" which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-1 effective 20 November 2019. FLAGS / AEA codes: AA, BA, UA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9V i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating decision, dated 9 June 2023, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA rating. 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 PTSD, 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 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14- 12a or 14-12b as appropriate. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused the discharge from the Army. The applicant contends, in effect, an honorable discharge will help the applicant continue in a career and receive educational benefits. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends, in effect, to have fulfilled a full 4 year military contract. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant had a 4 year contract, however, the applicant completed 3 years, 10 months, and 14 days of this contract, therefore the applicant did not complete the first full term of the applicant's military contract. The applicant contends, in effect, while in service, the applicant had a few personal hardships in life that caused the applicant to battle depression. Battling depression, while serving in the military, became too much for the applicant which led the applicant to make a few bad decisions. The applicant provided a VA disability rating decision, dated 9 June 2023, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 24 October 2019, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends, in effect, to have served at Camp Humphreys, South Korea and at Fort Polk, LA, where the applicant received many awards, promotions, great physical training scores, and good conduct. The Board will consider the applicant's 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/experiences: Anxiety Disorder and Unspecified Mood Disorder with chronic Intimate Partner Violence. The applicant is service connected for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to the IPV with likely Military Sexual Trauma. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder and Unspecified Mood Disorder with chronic IPV. The applicant is service connected for PTSD secondary to the IPV with likely MST. (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 basis for separation is partially mitigated by PTSD and partially mitigated by IPV to include likely MST. In reviewing the separation file, it is more likely than not that the assault offense was related to the severe IPV and the perpetrator goading and fueling the initial argument with the subsequent plan to assault the individual, which included driving himself and the applicant to the home and assault the individual. The applicant was likely complying with the perpetrator given the abuse applicant was suffering and fear of consequences. Similarly, breaking restriction and giving a false statement are more likely than not related to the IPV and driven by orders given by the perpetrator with fear of what would occur if she didn't comply. The applicant's drug abuse is mitigated by the applicant's PTSD given the nexus between trauma and self-medication. (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 (caused by Intimate Partner Violence with likely Military Sexual Trauma) outweighed the applicant's drug abuse, assault, breaking restriction, and false official statement offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends while in service, the applicant had a few personal hardships in life that caused the applicant to battle depression. Battling depression, while serving in the military, became too much for the applicant which led the applicant to make a few bad decisions. The Board liberally considered this contention but ultimately did not make a determination as to mitigation provided by the applicant's asserted depression due to the Board's finding that that the applicant's Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (caused by Intimate Partner Violence with likely Military Sexual Trauma) outweighed the applicant's drug abuse, assault, breaking restriction, and false official statement offenses. (2) The applicant contends to have served at Camp Humphreys, South Korea and at Fort Polk, LA, where the applicant received many awards, promotions, great physical training scores, and good conduct. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not make a determination on this matter due to medical mitigation already being found as discussed above. (3) The applicant contends an honorable discharge will help the applicant continue in a career and receive educational benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (caused by Intimate Partner Violence with likely Military Sexual Trauma) outweighing the applicant's drug abuse, assault, breaking restriction, and false official statement offenses. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 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 (caused by Intimate Partner Violence with likely Military Sexual Trauma) outweighed the applicant's drug abuse, assault, breaking restriction, and false official statement offenses. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The RE code will change to RE-1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: RE-1 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210006430 1