1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 January 2020 b. Date Received: 21 December 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 discharge was inequitable because it was an isolated incident. The applicant states the applicant was enrolled in ASAP and did not pass the first two screenings for alcohol, but the rest of the tests were negative. The issue that caused the discharged has been addressed and corrected by enrolling and completing a rehabilitation program. The applicant also relocated to another state to recover without all the stress and triggers of the old environment. The applicant is continuing recovery by attending meetings and counseling. The applicant had been clean for 6 months. The applicant states there was honorable service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 September 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: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200 / Chapter 9 / JPD / RE-4 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 August 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was considered a SUDCC failure due to testing positive multiple times for consumption of alcohol use while enrolled in the program from on or about 13 April 2017 to on or about 20 November 2017. The applicant, on multiple occasions, has had domestic violence incidents with spouse. Also, on divers’ occasions the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: 14 November 2018 / The applicant appeared with counsel and the Administrative Separation Board recommended the applicant be discharged with a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 November 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 November 2015 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25U3P, Signal Support System Specialist / 12 years, 1 month, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 November 2006 – 22 November 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (18 March 2008 – 17 June 2009), Haiti (18 January 2010 – 1 June 2010), Afghanistan (27 /January 2012 – 15 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, AFSM, HSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 16 November 2017 – 15 November 2018 / Not Qualified 9 December 2015 – 15 November 2017 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: On 24 March 2017, the applicant was involved in a traffic accident at the intersection of Bailey Lake Road and Bingham Drive. The applicant was charged with DWI, but the incident did not make the blotter. DA Form 8003 Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form dated 12 April 2017, 9 May 2017. Developing Counseling Form dated 12 May 2017, recommending the applicant’s separation from the service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: On 23 August 2018, MSE / The applicant was diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, mild. The applicant can understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, letters of support-2, ERB, DD Form 214, Service School Academic Evaluation Report-3, NCOERs-4, Individual Jump Record, 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant completed a rehabilitation program and has been clean for 6 months. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to ASAP for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. Paragraph 9-4 stipulates the service of Soldiers discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. An honorable discharge is mandated in any case in which the Government initially introduces into the final discharge process limited use evidence as defined by AR 600–85. 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 discharge was inequitable because it was an isolated incident. The applicant was considered a SUDCC failure due to testing positive multiple times for consumption of alcohol use while enrolled in the program from on or about 13 April 2017 to on or about 20 November 2017. The applicant also, on multiple occasions, had domestic violence incidents with spouse and on divers’ occasions the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty. The applicant contends the issue that caused the discharged has been addressed and corrected by enrolling and completing a rehabilitation program. The applicant also relocated to another state to recover without all the stress and triggers of the old environment. The applicant is continuing recovery by attending meetings and counseling and the applicant has been clean for 6 months. 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 applicant states there was honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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: The applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD with in-service IPV as the perpetrator. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant is service connected for PTSD. IPV was as the perpetrator not victim. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and substance use and avoidance, the applicant's SUDCC failure and FTRs are mitigated. However, perpetrating domestic violence is not a progression or sequela of trauma; IPV is not mitigated by the service-connected diagnosis. (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 conditions fully outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – specifically domestic violence – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but determined that the number of times the applicant asserts the incident(s) occurred does not outweigh the serious nature of the domestic abuse misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the issue that caused the discharged has been addressed and corrected by enrolling and completing a rehabilitation program. The Board considered this contention and found that the applicant’s completion of a rehabilitation program does not mitigate or outweigh domestic abuse. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of domestic violence. 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, 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 AR20210011122 1