1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 October 2020 b. Date Received: 13 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while deployed to Afghanistan the applicant was involved in a near death experience, dealt with the death of a fellow soldier, and the applicant’s spouse expressed wanting a divorce. After returning from deployment the applicant began having domestic abuse altercations with the applicant’s spouse. The applicant started seeing a psychiatrist for anger management and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2013. The applicant reconciled with the spouse but still struggles with the effects of combat. The applicant is employed by the City of Dallas and is a member of the Water Environmental Association of Texas. (The applicant’s complete statement is available for the board’s review) b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 December 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 Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 2 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 December 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty on 8 separate occasions; the applicant violated a lawful order on 10 February 2011; the applicant assaulted spouse on 1 March 2011; the applicant violated a court order on 20 April 2011, the applicant violated a court order to not have any contact with spouse; on 11 May 2011, the applicant drove on a revoked license and violated conditions of release by possessing a firearm; on 11 July 2011, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer; and on 25 August 2011, the applicant assaulted a child and spouse in a domestic dispute. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived the right to have the case heard by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 January 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 June 2008 / 4 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92W10, Water Treatment Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 February 2010 – 7 February 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) CG Article 15, 24 February 2011, reflects the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty on two separate occasions and disobeyed a lawful command. The punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3; forfeiture of $429 pay, suspend $429, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 23 August 2011; extra duty for 14 days. (2) Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 27 July 2011, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had a negative screen for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic stress disorder (TBI). (3) Incident Report, 1 March 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with simple assault against spouse. (4) Incident Report, 20 April 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with simple assault against spouse. (5) Incident Report, 25 August 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with domestic aggravated assault with Conditions of Release (COR), child abuse/neglect and violation condition of release. (6) The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions for various forms of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 12 May 2011 – 31 May 2011) (26 August 2011 – 7 September 2011) j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, 29 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted service connection for treatment purposes only for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder, pseudo seizures conversion disorder insomnia a d adjustment disorder anxiety. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement-13 pages, VA Rating Decision, CAB Orders, letters of support-3, obituary, Post Deployment Health Reassessment. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is employed by the City of Dallas and is a member of the Water Environmental Association of Texas. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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, in effect, while deployed to Afghanistan the applicant was involved in a near death experience, dealt with the death of a fellow soldier, and the applicant’s spouse expressed wanting a divorce. The applicant contends, in effect, after returning from deployment the applicant began having domestic abuse altercations with the applicant’s spouse. The applicant started seeing a psychiatrist for anger management and was diagnosed with PTSD in 2013. The applicant reconciled with the spouse but still struggles with the effects of combat. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant underwent a MSE on 27 July 2011, which reflected the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant had a negative screen for PTSD and mild TBI. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant reconciled with the spouse but still struggles with the effects of combat. The applicant is employed by the City of Dallas and is a member of the Water Environmental Association of Texas. 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. 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: In-service diagnosis was an Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, the VA records indicate the applicant is service connected for Major Depressive Disorder. However, the VA has listed combat related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder so this will be applied irrespective of service connection. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant’s in-service diagnosis was an Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma, avoidance, and difficulty with authority the Failure to Report and disobeying an order on 11 July 2011 are mitigated. Regarding, the unmitigated charges, there is a lack of documentation supporting trauma related symptoms influenced the unmitigated events to include normal mental status exams and ability to clearly relay events with an ability to understand the seriousness and consequences leading to denial. (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 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for assaulting spouse; violating a court order; driving on a revoked license; violating conditions of release by possessing a firearm; assaulting a child and spouse for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, while deployed to Afghanistan the applicant was involved in a near death experience, dealt with the death of a fellow soldier, and the applicant’s spouse expressed wanting a divorce. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of assaulting spouse; violating a court order; driving on a revoked license; violating conditions of release by possessing a firearm; and assaulting a child and spouse. (2) The applicant contends, I effect, after returning from deployment the applicant began having domestic abuse altercations with the applicant’s spouse. The applicant started seeing a psychiatrist for anger management and was diagnosed with PTSD in 2013. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of assaulting spouse; violating a court order; driving on a revoked license; violating conditions of release by possessing a firearm; and assaulting a child and spouse. 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 Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder did not excuse or medically mitigate assaulting spouse; violating a court order; driving on a revoked license; violating conditions of release by possessing a firearm; and assaulting a child and spouse offenses. (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 AR20210007161 1