1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 July 2020 b. Date Received: 28 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was depressed but did not realize it because the depression doesn't manifest as a "depressed" or sadden" state, it manifested through drinking and not caring. The applicant takes responsibility for the actions leading to the discharge. The applicant has been working diligently to be a model citizen. The applicant completed an apprenticeship and attended college and will be signing a contract to become an adjunct professor. The applicant desires to use veteran's benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 July 2023, and by a 3- 2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct and post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 August 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a CG Article 15 on 8 September 2004 and 19 October 2004 for failure to go to the appointed place of duty art the prescribed time. The applicant also received a FG Article 15 on 19 March 2005 for failing to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty. At the time of imposition of punishment, the portion of the punishment for forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months, was suspended. On 30 June 2004, the suspended punishment was vacated because the applicant assaulted SPC K on 16 June 2005. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 July 2005 / The applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 July 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 June 2003 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25B10, Information System Operator / 2 years, 1 month, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 8 September 2004, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on four separate occasions. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $278; 14 days extra duty; and 14 days restriction. CG Article 15, dated 19 October 2004, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on two separate occasions and violated a general regulation on two separate occasions. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 19 March 2005, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on 25 February 2005; on or about 17 February 2005, failed to obey a lawful order; and on or about 17 February 2005, the applicant was found drunk while on duty. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 14 September 2005; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 11 May 2005, reflects the applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse. The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions for various forms of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a letter from a Clinical Psychologist, with Ochsner Healthcare dated 22 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was initially diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and shortly after was also diagnosed with ADHD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, letter of support, Official Training Transcript, State Licensing Board for Contractors, letter from the State of Louisiana, State Licensing Board for Contractors, Unofficial college Transcript, Scholarship Certificate, letters Ochsner Healthcare-3. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been working diligently to be a model citizen. The applicant completed an apprenticeship and attended college and will be signing a contract to become an adjunct professor. 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 14-2b 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 "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 narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and 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 listed in tables 2-2 or 2-2 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, in effect, the applicant was depressed but did not realize it because the depression doesn't manifest as a "depressed" or sadden" state, it manifested through drinking and not caring. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of depression diagnosis. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 11 May 2005, which reflects the applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse. The applicant provides a letter from a Clinical Psychologist, with Ochsner Healthcare dated 22 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was initially diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and shortly after was also diagnosed with ADHD. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant has been working diligently to be a model citizen and completed an apprenticeship and attended college and will be signing a contract to become an adjunct professor. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant desires to use the veteran's benefits. 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. 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: post-service applicant provided letters noting Intermittent Explosive Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The applicant asserts depression in-service, but was not diagnosed in service and is not in service connected for the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the post-service diagnoses are acknowledged, they were diagnosed 10 years post-discharge, were not linked to service, and were noted to be secondary to substance use with resolution off of substances. Although the applicant reported depression in-service, documentation is void of support for an in-service diagnosis to include the post-service letters which do not link the two. (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 Intermittent Explosive Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the applicant's multiple FTRs, failure to obey lawful order, drunk on duty, and violating a lawful general regulation misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the applicant was depressed but did not realize it because the depression didn't manifest as a "depressed" or "saddened" state, it manifested through drinking and not caring. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the applicant's Intermittent Explosive Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder did not outweigh the applicant's misconduct. However, the Board did determine the characterization was inequitable based on the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct and the post-service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's misconduct. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and post service accomplishments outweighing the applicant's multiple FTRs, failure to obey lawful order, drunk on duty, and violating a lawful general regulation misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210006540 1