1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 February 2021 b. Date Received: 1 March 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 general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change to misconduct, disability, liberal. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that during his time as a Military Police Handler he frequently went above and beyond his expectation of duties. He graduated Air Assault School., passed every physical fitness test, completed all online classes, always shot expert on weapons qualifications, passed every military working dog certification, conducted countless barracks inspections and explosive sweeps for the POTUS and Generals. Worked the road apprehending multiple suspects and retrieving numerous amounts of narcotics off the base of Fort Bragg. Then he deployed to Helmand, Afghanistan in 2015 to 2016 and was assigned to a Special Forces Team where he implemented his K9 duties in support of the team. While on the deployment to Afghanistan he received multiple injuries such as two concussions and a lower back injury. Upon returning from deployment, he was also diagnosed with severe PTSD, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and chronic migraines. He was not the same person he was when he left for deployment and his chain of command was not able to recognize that and labeled his as a trouble make instead of misunderstood due to his tough transition back to garrison life. The applicant contends his PTSD diagnosis was not fully approved until after the decision to discharge him was made. He feels like he was judged by a mistake after returning from a rough deployment instead of the entirely of his military career and accomplishments. The lack of help he received from his chain of command led him to his poor judgement and discharge from his military duties which he loved and wanted to make a career out of. He made mistakes, but he strongly believes that his discharge should be upgrade to honorable due to the unjust circumstances and all the love and pain he put into serving in the Army before he had the unfortunate experiences of being diagnosed with PTSD. He knows he is a good person, and would just like to have a second chance. In a records review conducted on 5 January 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 August 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully using cocaine on or about 16 February 2017; Physically assaulting Ms. L. C., on 16 July 2016; and Disobeying a lawful order, damaging the property of Ms. L.C., and physically restraining Ms. L.C., on 6 August 2016 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 July 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 May 2016 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31K10, Military Working Dog Handler / 5 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 May 2012 to 24 May 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ACMV, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Incident / Investigation Report, dated 16 July 2016, indicating the applicant was the subject of investigation for simple assault on his wife. FG Article 15, dated 24 January 2017, for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer not to directly or indirectly contact Ms. L.C., and order which was his duty to obey on 6 August 2016, wrongfully damaging a cell phone of a value of about $350.00 the property of Ms. L.C., on 6 August 2016, unlawfully restrained Ms. L.C., on the back, arms, and neck with his arms and hands, on 6 August 2016, and unlawfully strike Ms. L.C., on the leg, stomach, with his fists and on her forehead with an unknown object on or about 16 July 2016. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $783.00 pay per months for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. CID Law Enforcement Report, dated 28 March 2017, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for the wrongful use of cocaine after testing positive for cocaine during a unit urinalysis inspection. Incident Investigative/Report with allied documents, dated 16 July 2016. Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. Fitness for duty memorandum, from the Department of Brain Injury Medicine, dated 22 April 2017, indicating that although the applicant experienced a mild concussion, he has been cleared from a TBI/Neurology perspective for full duty without restrictions including highly strenuous or high-risk activities, and no additional follow was required. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 February 2017, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with and Axis I for Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified. The applicant was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury. It was noted that the applicant screened positively for depression however, symptoms did not constitute matters in extenuation that related to the basis of administrative separation and no further evaluation was indicated at that time. The applicant screened positive on the PTSD screener. After further evaluation, the applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD, no further evaluation was indicated at that time. The applicant screened positive on the TBI screener and was previously seen by the Concussion Care Clinic (CCC), the applicant was referred for additional evaluation and must complete the evaluating and be formally cleared by the CCC prior to being cleared by Behavioral Health for any administrative action. Remarks on the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, indicated that the applicant endorsed stress-related symptoms secondary to ongoing chapter process and previous deployment experience that warrant a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified. However, there was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The applicant was not psychologically cleared for administrative separation and was pending further evaluation by the CCC. However, final determination of separation remained the responsibility of the separation authority. Fitness for duty memorandum, from the Department of Brain Injury Medicine, dated 22 April 2017, indicates that although the applicant experienced a mild concussion, he has been cleared from a TBI/Neurology perspective for full duty without restrictions including highly strenuous or high-risk activities, and no additional follow was required. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; several character reference letters from different sources; award certificates for several awards to include BSM, ARCOM, AGCM; course completion certificates; and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 5 November 2020, which makes reference to the applicant for have been awarded 100 percent service connected disabilities. 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 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: 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. 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 general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change to misconduct, disability, liberal. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for wrongfully using cocaine; physically assaulting his wife; disobeying a lawful order, damaging the property of his wife and physically restraining his wife. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that during his time as a Military Police Handler he frequently went above and beyond his expectation of duties. He graduated Air Assault School, passed every physical fitness test, completed all online classes, always shot expert on weapons qualifications, passed every military working dog certification, conducted countless barracks inspections and explosive sweeps for the POTUS and Generals. Worked the road apprehending multiple suspects and retrieving numerous amounts of narcotics off the base of Fort Bragg. Then he deployed to Helmand, Afghanistan in 2015 to 2016 and was assigned to a Special Forces Team where he implemented his K9 duties in support of the team. The applicant's in-service accomplishments were noted and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that while on the deployment to Afghanistan he received multiple injuries such as two concussions and a lower back injury. Upon returning from deployment, he was also diagnosed with severe PTSD, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and chronic migraines. He was not the same person he was when he left for deployment and his chain of command was not able to recognize that and labeled his as a trouble make instead of misunderstood due to his tough transition back to garrison life. The applicant contends his PTSD diagnosis was not fully approved until after the decision to discharge him was made. He feels like he was judged by a mistake after returning from a rough deployment instead of the entirely of his military career and accomplishments. The lack of help he received from his chain of command led him to his poor judgement and discharge from his military duties which he loved and wanted to make a career out of. He made mistakes, but he strongly believes that his discharge should be upgrade to honorable due to the unjust circumstances and all the love and pain he put into serving in the Army before he had the unfortunate experiences of being diagnosed with PTSD. He knows he is a good person, and would just like to have a second chance. The applicant's contentions were noted; the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 February 2017, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified. The applicant was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury. It was noted that the applicant screened positively for depression however, symptoms did not constitute matters in extenuation that related to the basis of administrative separation and no further evaluation was indicated at that time. The applicant screened positive on the PTSD screener. After further evaluation, the applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD, no further evaluation was indicated at that time. The applicant screened positive on the TBI screener and was previously seen by the Concussion Care Clinic (CCC), the applicant was referred for additional evaluation and it was noted that he must complete the evaluating and be formally cleared by the CCC prior to being cleared by Behavioral Health for any administrative action. The independent document submitted by the applicant indicating he has been awarded 100 percent service connected disability was noted. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. 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. In service the applicant was diagnosed with Unspecified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder and Concussion. Post-service, the VA has diagnosed and service connected him for PTSD and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant was diagnosed with Unspecified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder and Concussion while in service. The VA has established that his VA diagnoses of PTSD and TBI are also associated with his active military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and TBI mitigate some of his misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD/TBI and the use of illicit drugs to self-medicate symptoms, there is a nexus between these diagnoses and his wrongful use of cocaine. Regarding the remaining misconduct (restraining and assaulting his wife, destroying his wife's property, violating a no-contact order), it is the opinion of the Agency BH advisor that neither his diagnosis of PTSD nor TBI mitigates this misconduct. Specifically, applicant's pattern of domestic violence toward his wife occurred over an extended period of time; it was not a spontaneous or random act; his choice of victim was not accidental and his misconduct did not suggest a re-enactment of his traumatic event. Moreover, the applicant could coherently speak of the events prior to, during and after his misconduct. Accordingly, while liberal consideration was applied, the applicant's misconduct is not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's non-medically mitigated offenses of restraining and assaulting his wife, destroying his wife's property, and violating a no-contact order outweighed the applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that during his time as a Military Police Handler he frequently went above and beyond his expectation of duties. The applicant's in-service accomplishments were noted and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. (2) The applicant contends that while on the deployment to Afghanistan he received multiple injuries such as two concussions and a lower back injury. The Board recognizes the applicant's PTSD and TBI diagnoses. However, due to the egregious and lengthy nature of restraining and assaulting his wife, destroying his wife's property, and violating a no-contact order the Board determined that the offenses outweighed these diagnoses. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. 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, the applicant's PTSD/TBI did not mitigate the offenses of restraining and assaulting his wife, destroying his wife's property, and violating a no-contact order. 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, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210011602 1