1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 April 2021 b. Date Received: 27 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to medical or honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant was arrested at Schofield Barracks, HI by the Military Police for suspicion of DUI (was not in applicant's POV), around 2012. There was never a conviction and the case was dismissed by the State of Hawaii. However, the applicant states having been an alcoholic (recovered), and when drinking, applicant's position didn't matter. In hind sight, applicant's career was over. The applicant states being issued a General Officers Letter of Reprimand and an Article 15 In 2010, upon applicant's last combat tour. The applicant had already determined applicant had a problem and was diagnosed with PTSD and chronic alcoholism. The applicant informed the Chain of Command and self-enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), and volunteered for rehabilitation quietly. The applicant was discharged from rehabilitation for failing to adapt and went straight back to work. Although he struggled with alcoholism, applicant never drank around anyone; applicant's OERs were still highly competitive and got along and worked hard. The applicant loved the Army and tried to save applicant's career. The applicant states working hard on sobriety and was doing very well, attending AA and ASAP and even playing drums for the on post church. The applicant was then notified that applicant's career would be over due to Army restructuring, applicant's GOMOR and the Article 15 in records. The applicant last drink was on 14 July 2014, the last night applicant's wife was on the island prior to moving to the mainland. Applicant ended up becoming disorderly in the hotel bar they were staying at and was apprehended. Furthermore, the applicant states working through 2 surgeries from a fall while traversing an obstacle in 2006, falling 4 feet with applicant's ruck sack while in North Carolina for SF selection, resulting in compression of the long thoracic nerve in the shoulder (scapula winging), radial nerve compression (2013) of the right arm and a couple of herniated disks. The applicant went onto OCS after recovering from the shoulder surgery where applicant was assigned to combat arms, spending the majority of applicant's eight years as an Armor Officer, in the Infantry and one more combat tour. Since being out of the Army, the applicant supports applicant's wife and her career, raises their kids and makes time, when possible, to volunteer, include helping other vets recover from alcohol and substance abuse. The applicant states being rated 100% P and T through the VA and was awarded full Social Security Disability that starting 11 OCT 2014 and has also been sober 7 years on 15 JUL 2021. The applicant says military records and discharge status is in error or unjust based on applicant's medical diagnosis of PTSD and conditions that were not addressed during the discharge and he respectfully asks that the entirety of applicant's twelve and a half years of service and all wartime be considered. This discharge status has been a source of shame and respectfully requests assistance in the remediation of applicant's record to reflect a career that proves devotion and love for applicant's Country through the sacrifice of applicant's mind and body. The applicant states being in no condition to be rational or discuss this until recently. Applicant is now in a very different mental space and is ready to do this. The applicant says having spent the last 7 years trying to piece things back together and is ready for closure, regardless of the outcome. In a records review conducted on 20 April 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed on 1 April 2014, to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (5) (acts of personal misconduct), paragraph 4-2b(8) (conduct unbecoming of an officer), paragraph 4-2c(1) (punishment under UCMJ, Article 15), and paragraph 4-2c(5) (derogatory information) due to the following reasons: On or about 4 November 2012, at or near Schofield Barracks, HI, the applicant resisted being apprehended by SGT J. H., military policeman, a person authorized to apprehend. On or about 4 November 2012, at or near Schofield Barracks, HI, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of .234%, thus exceeding the legal limit. On or about 4 November 2012, at or near Schofield Barracks, HI, the applicant, while drunk and after being apprehended, made comments that were inappropriate, offensive, and degrading to various military policeman, to wit: referring to SSG V. C. D., as a "cunt" and "bitch ass pig;" and calling SGT T. H. a "mother fucker," "bitch ass pig," and saying "go fuck yourself." On or about 1 March 2013, the applicant received a General Officer (GO) Article 15 for the misconduct which violated Articles 95, 111, and 133 of the UCMJ. On or about 28 November 2012, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for misconduct indicated above. On or about 3 March 2014, in Mililani, HI, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of .173%, thus exceeding the limit and received a GOMOR for this misconduct. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 8 August 2014 (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 29 August 2014, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 25 January 2007 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 30 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: 0-3 / 19A Armor, General / 12 years, 5 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 12 January 1995 - 26 March 1995 / NA RA, 27 March 1995 - 30 May 1995 / UNC RA, 11 July 2002 - 24 January 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (24 January 2004 - 4 February 2005); Iraq (1 July 2009 - 1 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, GCM, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-3, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 21 July 2007 - 18 November 2010 / Best Qualified 19 November 2010 - 30 September 2012 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 1 November 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Resisting arrest, conduct unbecoming of an officer. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 28 November 2012, reflects the applicant was operating a motor vehicle on 4 November 2012, while under the influence of alcohol on Schofield Barracks, HI. FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2013, for resisting being apprehended by SGT J. H., military policeman, a person authorized to apprehend on or about 4 November 2012, for physically controlling a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk on or about 4 November 2012 and for making comments that were inappropriate, offensive and degrading to various military policemen to wit: referring to SSG V. C. D., as a "cunt" and "bitch ass pig;" and calling SGT T. H. a "mother fucker," "bitch ass pig," and saying "go fuck yourself," on or about 4 November 2012, which conduct was unbecoming of an officer. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2902 pay per month for two months (suspended); to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 September 2013; restriction for 60 days to the limits of place of duty, home, place of worship, physical fitness centers on Schofield Barracks, commissary on Schofield Barracks, Tripler Army Medical Center, the Hawaii State Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office, attorney's office, and Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 25 March 2014, reflects the applicant was operating a motor vehicle on 3 March 2014, in Mililani, HI., while under the influence of alcohol. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 April 2014, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD and mild TBI and it was noted he was positive for both conditions. The applicant was also enrolled in ASAP. Remarks show the SM had symptoms of depression and anxiety related to deployments and acute stressors. He received behavioral health treatment and his primary diagnosis was depression. He also received a comprehensive PTSD evaluation by his, then, provider, and did not meet the criteria for PTSD, no further evaluation was needed. He had already been evaluated for TBI and received appropriate care. Again, no further evaluation was needed. It was determined the applicant had symptoms of depression and anxiety related to deployment but met the retention standards of AR 40-501 and did not require a MEB/PEB. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Given the applicant's history of alcohol abuse, he should be prohibited from drinking alcohol. He was cleared to participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 21 February 2020, reflecting the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for PTSD with depression and binging and purging due to anxiety (also claimed as bulimia nervosm purge type). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online DD Form 149 with a myriad of supporting documents; VA Compensation Documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant makes time to volunteer, to include helping other vets recover from alcohol and substance abuse. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (6) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (7) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The applicants service accomplishments and the quality of service will be considered by the board according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends supporting their family and volunteers in the community to help other Veterans recover from alcohol and substance abuse. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant says military records and discharge status is in error or unjust based on his medical diagnosis of PTSD and conditions that were not addressed during the discharge and he respectfully asks that the entirety of his twelve and a half years of service and all wartime be considered. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Bulimia, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and a variety of substance disorders, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Bulimia, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and a variety of substance disorders. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical condition does mitigate the basis of separation; there is a nexus between trauma and substance use. (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 PTSD completely outweighed the basis for separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (2) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered this contention and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's substance use. (3) The applicant contends supporting their family and volunteers in the community to help other Veterans recover from alcohol and substance abuse. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that and upgrade to Honorable was warranted due to applicant's PTSD outweighing the discharge. c. The Board determined the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's misconduct of substance abuse. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210010756 1