1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 August 2020 b. Date Received: 1 September 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: (1) The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). (2) The applicant seeks relief stating their discharge was inadequate because the offense they were charged with in a civilian court was dropped, which is stated in an attached letter from their lawyer. They have been dealing with great depression and anxiety for most of their career. Their command was no help before, during, or after their separation process. Their negative actions are not a testament of their character. They would like to have their discharge upgraded so they could at least get Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to get the mental help they desperately need. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) / Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 3 February 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 October 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: involved in two serious incidents of alcohol-related misconduct within a 12-month period. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 October 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 6 December 2019, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for waiver of an Administrative Separation Board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 December 2019 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Associate Degree / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: Sergeant/E-5 / 68D1O, Operating Room Specialist / 7 years, 11 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AGCM, -2, NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017 / Qualified 1 April 2017 – 27 November 2017 / Most Qualified 27 November 2017 – 10 December 2018 / Highly Qualified 11 December 2018 – 6 December 2019 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Civil Police Department Case History, dated 8 June 2019, reflects the applicant was named as the subject with the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (Off Post). The applicant's previous offenses are shown as a weapons violation on 11 February 2016 and for Driving Under the Influence, on 1 June 2016. The Case Narrative states the applicant was arrested by a city police officer for driving under the influence of alcohol, transported to the Fort Riley Military Police Department, and was issued a Temporary Suspension of Installation Driving Privileges Memorandum. (2) The Fort Riley Operation Center Incident Report, dated 8 June 2019, reflects the applicant as the subject with the type of incident as Driving Under the Influence. Summary of Incident states the applicant was arrested at approximately 8 June 2019 and charged with Driving Under the Influence. The applicant refused to provide a breathalyzer, the police took the applicant to an off post hospital for a blood sample; however, the results was not available. (3) A memorandum, Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and For Riley, subject: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 21 August 2019, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol. A civilian police officer administered a Field Sobriety Test which indicated multiple signs of impairment. The applicant refused to provide a breath sample, in violation of state law. (4) In the applicant's memorandum, subject: GOMOR Response, dated 28 August 2019, states – (a) Since they have joined the U.S. Army at the age of 17, they have achieved great accomplishments, personally and professionally. As a noncommissioned officer (NCO), they realized that they set an example for their subordinates, peers, and family, as well as those whom they serve with. They understand that failure to submit to the breathalyzer is unacceptable and regret their refusal to submit to the breathalyzer. (b) They have no excuses for their actions and believes this incident should not cause such a negative effect on their future career. They ask that their negative actions be forgiven. They have taken responsibility for their action. An attached a letter from their private attorney showing the actual amended charge against them as reckless driving. (5) The Chain of Command GOMOR Recommendations, signature, and date redacted, the applicant's company commander recommended the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) states the applicant has a prior record of unfavorable action at a different installation related to the same offense. The applicant's brigade commander concurred with the company commander's recommendation and states repeated offenses of the same/similar conduct despite previous command actions and provisions of assistance and support. (6) On 30 September 2019, the GOMOR issuing authority, having carefully considered the applicant's GOMOR, the circumstances of the misconduct, and all matters submitted by the applicant in their defense, extenuation, or mitigation, if any, along with recommendation of subordinate commanders, directed the GOMOR be placed permanently in the applicant's AMHRR. (7) County Police Department Officer Report for Incident, dated 7 September 2019, reflects the applicant as the named subject with the offense of driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The applicant provided a breath sample that yielded a .157 Breath Alcohol Content. The police noted the applicant has on pending driving under the influence charge in Geary County, Kansas. (8) A memorandum, Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and For Riley, subject: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 30 September 2019, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol. On or about 7 September 2019, at 0208 hours, the applicant was pulled over for driving the wrong way down a one way street. A Riley County Police Officer administered a Field Sobriety Test and Preliminary Breath Test which showed the presence of alcohol. The applicant submitted to an Intoxilyzer test which identified a breath alcohol content of 0.157 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. On 2 October 2019, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected not to submit any matters on their behalf. (9) The Chain of Command GOMOR Recommendations, signature, and date redacted, the applicant's company commander recommended the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's AMHRR states this is the applicant's second GOMOR for this second DUI in 90 days. The applicant's brigade commander concurred with the company commander's recommendation. (10) On 10 October 2019, the GOMOR issuing authority, having carefully considered the applicant's GOMOR, the circumstances of the misconduct, and all matters submitted by the applicant in their defense, extenuation, or mitigation, if any, along with recommendation of subordinate commanders, directed the GOMOR be placed permanently in the applicant's AMHRR. (11) A memorandum, Medical Company, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 15 October 2019, notified the applicant of initiating actions for separation for commission of serious offenses. The reason for the proposed action is stated that the applicant was involved in two serious incidents of alcohol-related misconduct within a 12-month period. The applicant acknowledges receipt of notification that same day. (12) On 15 October 2019, the applicant's company commander submitted the request to separate the applicant prior to their expiration term of service. (13) On 29 October 2019, the applicant completed their election of rights signing they had been advised by counsel of the basis for their separation and its effects and of the rights available to them. The applicant requested approval of their conditional waiver for no less than a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, stating – They have no excuses for their actions and apologizes to their commanders, their unit, and their family. They have dedicated their selfless service to the Army for 7 years, worked to excel at every task given. They have accepted losing the ability to make the Army their career as a result of their action; however, they have great concern of the effect of having an Other Than Honorable discharge will have on their ability to find a job outside the Army and to provide for their family. (14) A memorandum, Irwin Army Community Hospital, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 30 October 2019, reflects the commander's recommendation to separate the applicant from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service and that their characterization of service be under other than honorable conditions. (15) A memorandum, Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 14 November 2019, reflects the conditional waiver submitted by the applicant on 29 October 2019 has been disapproved and the case is referred to a hearing before the Administrative Separation Board. (16) On 21 November 2019, the applicant was notified that an administrative board has been scheduled for 11 December 2019. (17) On 3 December 2019, the applicant states they have been advised by their consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate them for the commission of a serious offense and it effects; of the rights available to them; and of the effect of any action taken by them in waiving their rights. They again, voluntarily waive consideration of their case by an administrative separation board, and they elected not to submit statements on their behalf. The applicant states "I do not believe that I suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury as a result of deployment overseas in support of a contingency operation during the previous 24 months. (19) A memorandum, Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley, subject: Separation Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c (2), Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs [Applicant], dated 6 December 2019, the separation authority, after careful consideration of all matters, approved the applicant's unconditional waiver. The command general directed the applicant's service be characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (20) A DA Form 2166-9-1 (NCO Evaluation Report), covering the period 11 December 2018 through 6 December 2019, reflects a relief-for-cause evaluation filed in the applicant's AMHRR performance folder. (a) Part Ii (Administrative – Reason for Submission) shows entry "Relief for Cause." (b) Part II (Authentication) show the rater signed the NCOER on 28 January 2020, the senior rated signed the NCOER on 31 August 2020 and the applicant did not sign the NCOER. (c) Part IVc (Character) shows the rater marked "Did Not Meet Standard" and commented, in part "used poor judgment on multiple occasions; failed in acting as a steward of the profession." (d) Part IVe (Intellect) shows the rater marked "Did Not Meet Standard" and commented, in part, "received administrative separation due to poor choices in judgment during off-duty hours." (e) Part IVf (Leads) shows the rater marked "Did Not Meet Standard" and commented, in part, "failed to uphold values and demonstrate professionalism; received two DUIs." (f) In the Rater Overall Performance section, the rater states, "rated Soldier has been reduced to PV1 as a result of administrative separation board," "[Applicant] was unable to meet the required Army and organizational standards during this rating period," and "relieved by rater and rated NCO has been notified of the reason for the relief." (g) Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential) shows the senior rater rated the applicant's as "Not Qualified" and commented "NCO refuses to sign. [Applicant] has no potential for further military service." (21) A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant was discharged on 3 February 2020 and shows in: * item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – Private * item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-1 * item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 7 year, 11 months, 6 days * item 12i (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 6 December 2019 * item 24 (Character of Service) – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c * item 26 (Separation Code) – JKQ [Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense] * item 27 (Reentry Code) – 4 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Misconduct, (Serious Offense) (22) The Enlisted Record Brief, dated 4 February 2020, reflects the applicant was promoted to the rank of sergeant/E-5 on 1 April 2016, was later reduced to the rank of private /E-1 on 6 December 2019. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: On 28 June 2021, the Army Review Boards Agency requested from the applicant medical documents that supports their medical and mental health issues. The applicant provided a VA letter summarizing their benefits and a combined service-connected evaluation of 100-percent. Additional VA documentation consisted of a VA Problem List reflecting anxiety and depression. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Counsel letter, reflecting the applicant was originally charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and prosecutor later agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving and further agreed to allow the applicant to enter into a diversion agreement * DD Forms 214 * Three VA Forms 214138 (Statement in Support of Claim), reflecting character statements on the applicant's behalf * Two character statements attesting to the applicant's good military bearing, personal and professional performance and character, and acceptance of the misconduct 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, (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, Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 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 (DoD) 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; Title 10 U.S. Code; Section 1553 and DoD Directive 1332.41 and DoD Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), dated 19 December 2016, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) A Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. 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. Paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Service Offense), stated 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. (5) Chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), currently in effect, 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 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) governs the program and identifies Army policy on alcohol and other drug abuse, and responsibilities. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier’s chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army’s mission. Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier’s potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. f. 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 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). g. 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 DoD Instruction 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): a. The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by DoD Instruction 1332.28. b. The available evidence provides the applicant was reprimanded twice for Driving Under the Influence within a period of one month. Review of the records provide the administrative irregularity in the proper retention of records, specifically, the AMHRR is void of documents showing whether the commander directed an initial Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program counseling according to Army Regulation 600-85. The applicant's AMHRR show no evidence of a deployment within 24 months of their discharge. c. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. d. Neither the applicant nor the AMHRR provide documentation of a diagnosis of depression or anxiety during the applicant's military service. e. Published DoD 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: the applicant held an in- service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, he is diagnosed with Dysthymic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder is not mitigating given it is a low-level difficulty coping with stressors that do not impair an individual’s ability to make conscious choices understanding right from wrong. Additionally, the VA has determined any in-service depressive symptoms did not rise to an impairing condition in-service and even 10 months’ post-discharge the applicant was functioning satisfactorily. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the board considered the opinion of the board’s medical advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder outweighed the misconduct – Driving Under the Influence (DUI) twice within a period of one month basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The board considered this contention and determined that Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is the proper characterization of service because of the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct - (DUI) twice within a period of one month, a discharge upgrade is not appropriate. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends their discharge was inadequate because the offense they were charged with in a civilian court was dropped. The board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By Driving Under the Influence (DUI) twice within a period of one month the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends they have been dealing with great depression and anxiety for most of their career. Their command was no help before, during, or after their separation process. The Board liberally considered this contention and a review of the applicant available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Ultimately, the board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the pattern of misconduct as outlined above in paragraph 9a (4) and (b (1). (4) The applicant contends they would like to have their discharge upgraded so they could at least get Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to get the mental help they desperately need. The board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of mental health 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 that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable. The board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant did not support a finding that the applicant’s discharge was improper or inequitable. 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 Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the two DUI charges and were discrediting to the applicant’s 7 years of service. 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. (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 AR20210009751 1