1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 December 2020 b. Date Received: 7 January 2021 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 changes to the SPD code and narrative reason. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s discharge characterization does not match the applicant’s 9 years of decorated service due to one incident that happened immediately following a deployment to Afghanistan (Iraq) that resulted in casualties in the applicant’s unit. During the applicant’s second deployment to Afghanistan (Iraq), a convoy that a staff sergeant wanted the applicant to be a part of was hit by an improvised explosive device where all eight Soldiers died. Afterwards, the applicant struggled with survivors guilt over the loss of 10 battle buddies. A newly promoted sergeant kept starting confrontations with the applicant when the applicant became withdrawn. On the final interaction, the sergeant got in the applicant’s face screaming at the applicant, refusing to back up when asked, and the applicant punched the sergeant because the applicant could not handle the stress of talking about the fallen comrades. The applicant was discharged from the Army and diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. During the applicant’s time in the Army, the applicant has received various medals and was submitted for a bronze star with valor. The applicant also discovered that the applicant was eligible for the rank of sergeant but was not promoted due to the position the applicant was in. The applicant has patched up countless Soldiers as the backup medic and never worried about the applicant’s own safety when a battle buddy was in trouble. The applicant would like to have the applicant’s discharge to represent all of the service that is clearly documented through the applicant’s medals and awards. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 April 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 February 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant assaulted a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO), wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with intent to become intoxicated, and failed to report at the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 March 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: (a) On 5 December 2006, as an offer to plead guilty the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, including a board authorized to recommend a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions if the command recommended separation proceedings. (b) Also on 5 December 2006, the applicant’s offer to plead guilty was accepted. All charges and specifications were referred to the Summary court-martial. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 March 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 July 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 9 years, 2 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 14 January 1998 - 3 May 2000 / HD ARNG, 4 June 1999 - 5 August 1999 / UNC (Concurrent Service) RA, 4 May 2000 - 14 July 2003 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Kosovo, SWA / Iraq (2 February 2004 - 12 February 2005; 23 August 2006 - 7 January 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-V, ARCOM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KCM, ICM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Developmental Counseling Form, 28 September 2006, shows the applicant was counseled for substance abuse. On 27 September 2006, the applicant’s team leader observed the applicant “huffing” a can of compressed air. (2) Developmental Counseling Form, 4 November 2006, shows the applicant was counseled for substance abuse. On 30 October 2006, the applicant’s platoon sergeant and medic found the applicant unresponsive with a can of compressed air in the applicant’s hands and it was ice cold which is considered as “huffing.” (3) Developmental Counseling Form, 11 November 2006, shows the applicant was counseled for striking an NCO in the face with the applicant’s fist. The applicant appeared at the time, unable to determine what the applicant was doing. (4) Charge Sheet, shows on 20 November 2006 the following charges were preferred against the applicant: (a) Charge I, in violation of Article 91: On or about 11 November 2006, in Iraq, the applicant struck an NCO, by punching the NCO in the face with the applicant’s fist. (b) Charge II, in violation of Article 134: Specification 1: On or about 11 November 2006, on divers occasions, the applicant wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with the intent to become intoxicated. Specification 2: On or about 30 October 2006, the applicant wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with the intent to become intoxicated. Specification 3: On or about 27 September 2006, the applicant wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with the intent to become intoxicated. (c) On 10 December 2006, the applicant was referred for trial to the Summary court- martial. (5) Memorandum, notification of Summary court-martial, 9 December 2006, shows the applicant was notified that the Summary court-martial would convene on 17 December 2006. (6) Report of Result of Trial shows the applicant was tried in a Summary court-martial on 17 December 2006. The applicant was charged with violation of Article 91, one specification, and Article 134, three specifications (as stated in subparagraph 4h(4)(a) and (b). The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: The applicant pleaded not guilty to Article 91, however, pleaded guilty to the lesser included Article 128 with a finding of guilty. The applicant was found guilty of Article 134, three specifications which was consistent with the plea. The applicant was sentenced to reduction from E-4 to E-1; forfeiture of $949.00; and confinement for 30 days. The sentence was adjudged on 17 December 2017. (7) Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, 17 December 2006, same as subparagraph 4h(6). The sentenced adjudged Is the same as subparagraph 4h(6). (8) Confinement order, 17 December 2006, shows the applicant was to be confined for 30 days. (9) Memorandum for Record, prisoner release, 8 January 2007, shows the applicant was released from the Theater Field Detention Facility in Kuwait on 8 January 2007. (10) Developmental Counseling Form, 19 January 2007, shows the applicant was counseled by the first sergeant that the applicant would be recommended for a separation under Chapter 14, Pattern of Misconduct. (11) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 19 January 2007, shows the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met medical retention requirements. (12) Report of Medical History, 6 February 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety attacks, nervousness multiple days a week, no meds, ongoing. (13) The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, 8 February 2007, shows the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 6 November 2006 and for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 16 January 2007. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 17 December 2006. (14) Memorandum, (Applicant) Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14- 12c, 13 March 2007, shows the applicant requested that the discharge be characterized as general under honorable conditions. (15) Three character references spoke highly of the applicant and recommended that the applicant receive no less than a general under honorable conditions discharge. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 23 days: CMA, 17 December 2006 - 8 January 2007 / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA disability rating decision screen shot from the applicant’s VA.Gov dashboard, showing the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD with substance abuse. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; two character references; VA Disabilities; VA Summary of Benefits. 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), 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 prescribes 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). 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: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. (3) 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. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, and changes to the SPD code and narrative reason. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 9 years, 2 months, 28 days during which the applicant served 6 years, 10 months, and 14 days of foreign service between Germany, Kosovo, and Iraq. In November 2006, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 91, one specification, and Article 134, three specifications (as stated in subparagraph 4h(4)(a) and (b). The applicant pleaded not guilty to Article 91, however, pleaded guilty to the lesser included Article 128 with a finding of guilty. The applicant was found guilty of Article 134, three specifications which was consistent with the plea. The applicant was sentenced to reduction from E-4 to E-1; forfeiture of $949.00; and confinement for 30 days, however served 23 days. The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service on 11 April 2007. c. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. d. The applicant requests the SPD be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” e. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s discharge characterization does not match the applicant’s 9 years of decorated service, in which the applicant received various medals and awards, and was submitted for a bronze star with valor. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. f. The applicant contends, in effect, after confrontations from a new sergeant, the applicant punched the sergeant because the applicant struggled with survivors guilt and could not handle the stress of talking about the fallen comrades from the last deployment to Afghanistan (Iraq). g. The applicant states they were discharged from the Army and diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a VA disability rating decision screen shot from the applicant’s VA.Gov dashboard, showing the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD with substance abuse. h. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board’s statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant’s petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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 DO NOS, PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Anxiety DO was diagnosed on active duty. PTSD is service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, PTSD (note-Anxiety DO NOS is subsumed under PTSD) which mitigates some of his misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD and use of illicit substances to self- medicate, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his illicit use of canned air as an inhalant. PTSD does not, however, mitigate the offense of assaulting his NCO given that PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 or PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation-assaulted a superior noncommissioned officer and wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with intent to become intoxicated and failed to report at the appointed place of duty – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s discharge characterization does not match the applicant’s 9 years of decorated service, in which the applicant received various medals and awards, and was submitted for a bronze star with valor. The Board considered this contention and acknowledged the applicant’s 9 years of service; however, it does not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct of assaulted a superior noncommissioned officer and wrongfully inhaled the contents of a compressed air can with intent to become intoxicated and failed to report at the appointed place of duty and therefore the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, after confrontations from a new sergeant, the applicant punched the sergeant because the applicant struggled with survivors’ guilt and could not handle the stress of talking about the fallen comrades from the last deployment to Afghanistan (Iraq). The Board considered this contention and found no corroborating evidence to support the applicant’s assertion, based on the timeline of events and evidence provided, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable based on the frequency and nature of the misconduct. (3) The applicant states they were discharged from the Army and diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board considered this contention and acknowledged the applicant’s in service diagnosis of PTSD. However, PTSD does not mitigate assaulting an NCO given that PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong, therefore the Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. 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 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 PTSD and did not excuse or mitigate the offense of assaulting an NCO. 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, and 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 AR20210007204 1