1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 May 2021 b. Date Received: 17 May 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending he was separated for going back to ASAP on the last week of the probation period from the first one at Fort Bragg. The applicant was put in the first one for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and MP's were called and they arrested everyone in the house and the applicant was breathalyzed at the PMO and didn't blow positive for alcohol because if the applicant had, did the MP's would have charged for underage drinking but his unit at Fort Bragg still enrolled the applicant in ASAP. ASAP then determined that the applicant didn't need to be there and released him after a couple weeks. The applicant went back the second time for blowing positive for alcohol from the night prior. The applicant states that there was a drinking problem at the time and thinks ASAP was required, but doesn't think separation was necessary. The unit also didn't give the applicant a proper hearing and wasn't allowed to speak to the BC, they initiated the separation and only had 2 weeks to out process during COVID which was impossible so the applicant didn't out process completely nor did complete Soldier for life. The applicant also thinks his DD Form 214 shouldn't say that he did not complete a contract because the applicant reenlisted, so the applicant believes the first enlistment was completed at Fort Bragg. The applicant also states all awards are not on the DD Form 214 and he does not have them due to the rush to ETS in Italy. The unit they made the applicant leave before completing his out processing and the household goods (HHG) shipment date was after his departure so he had a POA that would take care of it. However, before the HHG shipment date one of the SFC's at the unit who disliked the applicant ordered Soldiers to clean out the room where the applicant's personal property was and threw it all away so the applicant lost everything, including awards. Overall the applicant really just wants to be able to use GI Bill because the applicant feels has done enough for that. In a records review conducted on 1 December 2021, 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: 22 May 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 25 March 2020, the separation authority having reviewed the applicant's separation packet and consideration of all matters, directed that the applicant be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 October 2016 / 3 years, 33 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / 11 years / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92R1P, Parachute Rigger / 3 years, 6 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (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. (5) 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, paragraph 6-4. e. 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-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. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 8. DISCUSSION 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending he was separated for going back to ASAP on the last week of the probation period from the first one at Fort Bragg. The applicant was put in the first one for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and MP's were called and they arrested everyone in the house and the applicant was breathalyzed at the PMO and didn't blow positive for alcohol because if the applicant had, did the MP's would have charged for underage drinking but his unit at Fort Bragg still enrolled the applicant in ASAP. ASAP then determined that the applicant didn't need to be there and released him after a couple weeks. The applicant went back the second time for blowing positive for alcohol from the night prior. The applicant states that there was a drinking problem at the time and thinks ASAP was required, but doesn't think separation was necessary. The unit also didn't give the applicant a proper hearing and wasn't allowed to speak to the BC, they initiated the separation and only had 2 weeks to out process during COVID which was impossible so the applicant didn't out process completely nor did complete Soldier for life. The applicant also thinks his DD Form 214 shouldn't say that he did not complete a contract because the applicant reenlisted, so the applicant believes the first enlistment was completed at Fort Bragg. The applicant also states all awards are not on the DD Form 214 and he does not have them due to the rush to ETS in Italy. The unit they made the applicant leave before completing his out processing and the household goods (HHG) shipment date was after his departure so he had a POA that would take care of it. However, before the HHG shipment date one of the SFC's at the unit who disliked the applicant ordered Soldiers to clean out the room where the applicant's personal property was and threw it all away so the applicant lost everything, including awards. Overall the applicant really just wants to be able to use GI Bill because the applicant feels has done enough for that. The applicant's contentions were noted; a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be the applicant's responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of the discharge for the purpose of being able to use his GI Bill benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does 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. Based on available records, the discharge appears consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health record and found that the applicant has an in-service diagnosis of Concussion (mild TBI) and a post-service VA diagnosis of Somatoform Disorder. These are both potentially mitigating conditions. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant has an in-service diagnosis of Concussion (mild TBI) and a post-service VA diagnosis of Somatoform Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. A review of the applicant's medical records indicates that, while on active duty, he suffered a mild concussion with no loss of consciousness or neurological or cognitive sequelae. This condition, however, does not mitigate his discharge for alcohol rehabilitation failure as his initial enrollment in SUDCC occurred prior to the head injury, indicating that his alcohol-related issues predated the occurrence of his concussion. VA medical records indicate he is 70% service-connected for Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder. Somatoform Disorder is a condition characterized by a person experiencing multiple physical symptoms which are excessive for any medical condition which may be present. In this condition, the affected individual distorts or misinterprets their somatic symptoms. On occasion, individuals with Somatoform Disorder may use alcohol to treat some of their somatic symptoms. This fact notwithstanding, a review of the applicant's military medical records indicates that 1) he did not demonstrate any symptoms connected with Somatoform DO while on active duty; 2) his primary BH diagnosis on active duty was Alcohol Abuse. (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 Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure outweighed the applicant's Somatoform Disorder for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends separation was for going back to ASAP on the last week of probation from the first attempt at Fort Bragg. The applicant returned the second time for blowing positive for alcohol from the night prior. The applicant admitted to having a drinking problem at the time and thinks ASAP (SUDCC) was required at the time, but shouldn't have been separated. The applicant further contends the unit also didn't give a proper hearing and never had a chance to speak to the BC, and didn't get to complete Soldier for life. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered, however, the Board determined the evidence contained in the record indicates the separation was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should not say did not complete a contract because the applicant reenlisted, and believes completed his first contract at Fort Bragg. Also, all awards are not on his DD Form 214. The applicant's HHG shipment was after departure, so had a POA take care of it, but before HHG shipment date, one of the SFC's at the unit ordered privates to clean out the room and threw it all away, so the applicant lost everything including his awards. The Board reviewed the applicant's enlistment document and DD214 authenticated by the applicant. The applicant enlisted for 3 years, 33 weeks, but only served 3 years, 29 weeks. Therefore, the Board determined the DD214 was correctly prepared. Additionally, requests for awards to be added to the record are not within the purview of the ADRB. Therefore, the applicant should apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records using a DD Form 149 to request awards to be added. (3) The applicant would like to be able to use GI Bill because feels like has done enough for that. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does 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, 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 contentions 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 Somatoform Disorder did not mitigate the offense of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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 ASAP - Army Substance Abuse Program 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 SUDCC - Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care 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 AR20210012680 1