1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 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, the misconduct which led to the discharge was caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the applicant should have been medically discharged. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization is inequitable based on the applicant's in- service mitigating factors of length, quality, combat service, applicant's in- and post service diagnosis of PTSD and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's behavioral health condition of PTSD partially mitigated: DWIs, drunk on duty, breaking restriction, flee from a taxicab without rendering proper payment and numerous FTRs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14- 12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 20 July 20210 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 April 2010/ 4 May 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 24 August 2009, the applicant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated on 26 October 2007 and 10 April 2009; the applicant jumped bail on redeployment in 2009; on 22 February 2010, the applicant received a field grade article 15 being drunk on duty on two separate occasions and failure to be at the appointed place of duty on six separate occasions; on 3 April 2010, the applicant was found drunk on duty; on 11 April 2010, the applicant attempted to flee from a taxi cab without rendering proper payment and breaking restriction; and on 21 April 2010 the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 17 June 2010, an administrative separation board found: the allegation the applicant was driving while intoxicated on 26 October 2007 and was convicted of that offense on 24 August 2009, was supported by the evidence; the allegation the applicant was driving while intoxicated, driving without a valid registration, driving without insurance, and driving without a valid license on 10 April 2009 and convicted of that offense on 24 August 2009 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant failed to honor the obligation under a bail bond from Discount Bail bond on 30 October 2007 was supported by the preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant was drunk while on duty as a Music Festival augmentee was supported by the preponderance of the evidence; the allegation he applicant was absent without leave on 23 October 2009, was supported by the preponderance of the evidence; the allegations the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty on 26 September 2009, 1 October 2009, 13 October 2009, 22 October 2009, and on 5 November 2009 was supported by the preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant was drunk on duty on 8 August 2009 and 3 April 2010 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the allegation he applicant attempted to flee from a taxi without rendering proper payment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant broke restriction on 11 April 2010 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty on 21 April 2010 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the allegation the applicant failed to report to formation and was later discovered asleep with a blood alcohol content of .126 percent was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and the allegation the applicant failed to report to formation and was in a room with blood alcohol content of .034 percent was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board found separation was warranted. The board recommended separation from the U.S. Army with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. While separation was recommended, the board made a non-binding recommendation to the separation authority that the discharge be suspended for a period of up to 12 months. The board's decision to suspend the separation was based on the fact PTSD may exist. The PTSD issue had not been completely evaluated, diagnosed, or resolved. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 July 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 November 2008 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 9 years, 9 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 April 2002 - 20 November 2008 / HD RA, 20 June 2001 - 3 November 201 / UNC (IADT) (Concurrent Service) USAR, 23 September 2000 - 4 April 2002 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Japan, Korea, SAW / Iraq (16 November 2005 - 12 November 2006), (12 November 2007 - 3 February 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS-2, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 January 2010, reflects the applicant was drunk on duty on or about 8 August 2009 and on or about 26 September 2009; and the applicant was absent without authority from the appointed place of duty on or about 23 October 2009; and the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on 5 separate occasions. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2, forfeiture of $811 pay for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted of not vacated before 21 August 2010, and restriction for 60 days. CG Article 15, dated 19 May 2010, reflects the applicant was drunk on duty on or about 3 April 2010; the applicant attempted to flee a cab without rendering proper payment on or about 11 April 2010; failure to pay debt for cab fair on or about 11 April 2010; and breaking restriction on or about 11 April 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $337, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 19 July 201; and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 27 October 2009, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides medical evidence reflecting an in- service diagnosis of chronic PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: The applicant separation file contains a Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 1 July 2010, which reflects an in-service diagnosis of chronic PTSD, alcohol dependence, and nicotine dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, Health Records, Memorandum, subject: Defense Request for Retention for [Applicant], dated 12 July 2012 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, 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. 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 the misconduct which led to the discharge was caused by PTSD and the applicant should have been medically discharged. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of chronic PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 27 October 2009, which indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 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 diagnosis: The applicant was diagnosed in-service with PTSD. Post-service, he is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that due to the nexus between trauma and substance use and avoidance, the applicant's misconduct is partially mitigated; DWIs, drunk on duty, breaking restriction, fleeing a cab, and not paying, and FTRs. However, jumping bail would not be mitigated, but would not outweigh PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's length, quality, combat service, and the applicant's in- and post service diagnosis of PTSD experience outweighed the applicant's misconducts - DWIs, drunk on duty, breaking restriction, flee from a taxicab without rendering proper payment and numerous FTRs. Also, the board concluded that neither the applicant PTSD nor misconduct of jumping bail outweigh the discharge as there is no nexus between PTSD, and the nature of the misconduct and one's ability to tell right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the applicant's length, quality, combat service, and the applicant's in- and post service diagnosis of PTSD experience partially outweighed the applicant's misconducts - DWIs, drunk on duty, breaking restriction, flee from a taxicab without rendering proper payment and numerous FTRs. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. (2) The applicant contends the misconduct which led to the discharge was caused by PTSD and the applicant should have been medically discharged. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted as outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1) of this document. c. The Board determined that the characterization was inequitable based on the applicant's length, quality, combat service, and the applicant's in- and post service diagnosis of PTSD experience outweighed the applicant's misconducts - DWIs, drunk on duty, breaking restriction, flee from a taxicab without rendering proper payment and numerous FTRs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated and outweighed the applicant's misconduct as outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and 9b (1). Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210007232 1