1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 May 2021 b. Date Received: 8 June 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, requests an upgrade of the character of service to general (under honorable conditions). b. Counsel states. The applicant is a disabled veteran with service connected post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant was a model infantryman, who served honorably, to include a deployment to Afghanistan where he lost a close friend in combat. The applicant was awarded their Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) and additionally received The Army Commendation Medal. Upon returning from deployment the struggles of untreated PTSD led to the charges that resulted in the applicant agreeing to a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the face of their outward display of PTSD symptoms the chain of command proved insensitive to applicant's need for help. The applicant stated had a greater effort to provide rehabilitation been made instead of labeling them as damaged goods, they would probably still be in the Army. Prior to the conduct that led to the discharge, the applicant had a clean service record that earned the respect and admiration of peers and superiors. The misconduct is sufficiently mitigated by PTSD and meets the standards for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (1) While deployed, the applicant's vehicle was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) and although initially rendered unresponsive, after coming to the applicant returned fire on the enemy. The loss of a close friend occurred during this incident. This incident, among many other traumatic events during the year-long deployment, weighed heavily on their mental health. (a) Upon returning from deployment, the applicant struggled dealing with the experiences of war and death. The applicant suffered with hearing loss, perpetual ringing in their ears, nightmares, and feelings of depression and guilt. They became aggressive, consumed alcohol to cope, and had issues sleeping and/or waking up, relying heavily on fellow soldiers to ensure they were awake to fulfill their duties. (b) The applicant made attempts to add positive experiences by requesting to attend college courses and other military training, only to be denied while they watched other soldiers being given the opportunities. The applicant became overwhelmed with depression and suffered from suicidal ideations and an attempt and accordingly sought help for the PTSD symptoms they were experiencing but remained fearful of the stigmas associated to PTSD consequently refrained from informing the command. The applicant went as far as to request a transfer to a new [duty] location on two separate occasions, in hopes a change of scenery would assist in their recovery, however both requests were denied. (2) The applicant states that they could no longer hear the sound of their alarm and frequently counted on their coworker to wake them. In April 2011, the applicant was not accounted for at Expert Infantryman Badge testing which resulted in three soldiers to check their room. When they were unsuccessful in getting an answer at the door, the housing office gave them access to the room, to find the applicant asleep. The senior leader advised the applicant to wake up and report, however, the applicant awoke startled, anxious, and scared becoming instantly resistant to orders and taken directly to the executive officer (XO) without the opportunity to change clothes. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to unburden concerns regarding the unit, the redeployment struggles, and disappointment with being denied for school, training, and transfers. At this time, the XO advised he would get the transfer, and put the applicant on room confinement until the transfer was made to happen. The applicant left with the impression the meeting went well. (a) Approximately three days later the applicant was taken, in the proper uniform, for a urinalysis test, given paperwork to sign, to find instead of it being simple disciplinary action, it was initial paperwork for a court-martial signed. Instead of being returned to training pending the transfer, once dropped off at the barracks the applicant was arrested by the Military Police and taken to a civilian jail and given a private jail cell from other prisoners. (b) After several days in jail, the command transferred the applicant back to the base to meet with the Judge Advocate General (JAG). It was at this time they had actual knowledge of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) charges they were facing, at which the JAG advised the applicant that they may not be released from jail due to the possibility of being a flight risk. The applicant was counseled they were facing five to six years in military prison or could potentially plead "no contest" and be discharged. Six months after being discharged, they could apply for a discharge upgrade. The applicant, a model soldier, signed the agreement on 3 May 2011, after having spent several days in jail intensifying the mental trauma already experienced. The applicant was discharged in-lieu-of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable (UOTHC) characterization of service. (3) Post-service the applicant struggled to adjust to civilian life with untreated PTSD, shame, and regret about the end of a military career that was a life dream. Continued challenges with getting out of bed, basic functioning and alcohol consumption resulted in an arrest for public intoxication. It was not until 2014 the applicant sought mental health assistance through the Veteran's Administration (VA) which resulted in service-connected PTSD of 70 percent (%). The applicant has since become a model member of the community, who continues to live Army Values, attained a bachelor's degree, currently working in banking while completing their master's degree. (4) Counsel further details the contentions in a legal brief provided with this application. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. Due to the applicant's medical diagnosis the board determined the current RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to upgrade it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 3 May 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for voluntary discharge under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 May 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 May 2011/ Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 May 2008 / 3 years, 23 days b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / Bachelor's Degree / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10 Infantryman / 3 years, 5 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: OEF / Afghanistan (1 March 2009 - 1 March 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, NM, CIB, PB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Enlistment/Reenlistment Document (DD Form 4/1), dated 25 April 2008, provides the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army Reserve at the rank of private (E-1) for a period of 6 years and 19 weeks active duty while 1 year and 33 weeks will be served in the Reserve Component. Orders 112-021, dated 22 April 2009, awarded Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) for engaged by or engaging the enemy on 16 March 2009. Department of the Army, The Army Commendation Medal awarded on 23 October 2009 for exceptionally meritorious service in support of OEF, the applicant's personal courage and commitment to mission accomplishment in a combat zone, under the most extreme circumstances, greatly contributed to the success of OEF. The applicant's performance reflects great credit upon themselves, Task Force Yukon, and The United States Army. Promotion orders not found in the applicant's AMHHR. The Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) provides the applicant was promoted to the rank of Specialist (E-4) on 13 May 2010. Three Development Counseling Forms (DA Form 4856), dated 17 February 2011, 11 and 26 April 2011, for failure to report on time, failure to report to EIB training, and failure to follow instructions. Charge Sheet (DD Form 458), dated 3 May 2011, provides the applicant was charged with: Charge I, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ: Specification of charge I: In that the applicant did, on or about 11 April 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to, the applicant's appointed place of duty, to wit: 0300 Expert Infantry Badge testing. Specification of charge II: In that the applicant did, on or about 26 April 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to, the applicant's appointed place of duty, to wit: 0915 work call. Specification of charge III: In that the applicant did, on or about 27 April 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to, the applicant's appointed place of duty, to wit: morning accountability formation. Specification of charge IIII: In that the applicant did, on or about 11 April 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to, the applicant's appointed place of duty, to wit: afternoon accountability formation. Charge II, violation of Article 90, UCMJ: Specification of charge I: In that the applicant, having received a lawful command from the applicant's superior commissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be the applicant's superior commissioned officer to not wear civilian clothes, did, at or near Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson, Alaska, on or about 27 April 2011, willfully disobey the same. Charge III, violation of Article 91, UCMJ: Specification of charge I: In that the applicant, at or near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on or about 26 April 2011, was disrespectful in language toward a Noncommissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be a Noncommissioned officer, who was in the execution of the Sergeant's office, by saying to the Sergeant, "this is kid s__t," or words to that effect. Specification of charge II: In that the applicant, having received lawful order from a Noncommissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be a Noncommissioned officer, to get out of bed, an order which it was the applicant's duty to obey, did at or near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on or about 26 April 2011, willfully disobey the same. Specification of charge III: In that the applicant, having received lawful order from a Noncommissioned officer, then known by the said applicant to be a Noncommissioned officer, to put on a uniform and report the company building, an order which it was the applicant's duty to obey, did at or near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on or about 27 April 2011, willfully disobey the same. On 3 May 2011, the applicant was counseled by their Military Defense Counsel, and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for charges preferred against them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of Article 86, 90, and 91, respectively, admitting guilt of the offenses charged or of a lesser offense. Review of the acknowledgement signed by the JAG contains potential administrative error where there is reference to effects, benefits, and discharge certificate for "Under Honorable Conditions" vice "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions." Memorandum for Commander. Subject: Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, [the applicant], CO, 3d BN, 509th IN, 4/25 ID, JBER, AK 99505, dated 3 May 2011, reflects the voluntary discharge request in lieu of court-martial, admitting guilt of the offenses charged or of lesser offenses. Memorandum for Commander. Subject: Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial, [the applicant], C Company, 3d Battalion, 509th Infantry, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK 99505, dated 5 May 2011, reflects approval of the applicant's voluntary discharge request in lieu of court-martial. Orders 129-0174, dated 9 May 2011, reassigning the applicant to U.S. Army Separations with a discharge date effective 17 May 2011. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the applicant has not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was separated with an under other than honorable (UOTHC) characterization of service. On 17 May 2011 the applicant was discharged accordingly. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant through counsel, provided Mental Health Evaluation, dated 9 October 2014, assessed by a Licensed Clinical Psychologist at Clarksburg VAMC, diagnosed the applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, in recent remission. The applicant through counsel, provided Mental The applicant, through counsel, provided Department of Veterans Affairs documents, dated 3 September 2018, indicating the applicant has been awarded 70 percent service connected disability for treatment purposes only for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate (also claimed as depression and sleep disturbances), lumbosacral strain, tinnitus, traumatic brain injury (TBI), left carpal tunnel syndrome, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and posttraumatic headaches associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The applicant, through counsel, provided Department of Veterans Affairs medical record, dated 30 October 2018, indicating the applicant has been under that VA facility's care since April 2017, stating the veteran is diagnosed with PTSD and is service connected, seems as likely as not that the veteran's exposure to stressors, while deployed, could have affected their actions that led to their discharge. (2) AMHRR Listed: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States); legal brief; self-authored statement; DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); Hagel & Kurta memos; support statements (4); case separation package; military & VA health records; court approved Expungement Order; and unofficial college transcripts for bachelor's degree awarded 15 December 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In the time since the applicant began treatment, they have become a model member of the community who continues to live the Army values. While the applicant lives with the struggles of PTSD, they have managed to achieve much success. They have attained a bachelor's degree on 15 December 2017, now working in banking while completing a master's degree. In addition, the applicant was able to successfully get the criminal records that resulted from untreated PTSD expunged. 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) 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) 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) An Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 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. (6) Paragraph 10-8a 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. (7) Paragraph 10b, 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. (8) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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: (1) RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. They are ineligible unless a waiver is granted. (3) RE-4 applies to Soldiers 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. They are ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. A review of the ERB provides that the applicant spent 1 year of their 3 years of active service deployed in Afghanistan in support of OEF from 1 March 2009 to 1 March 2010. The applicant was awarded their CIB on 22 April 2009 for an enemy engagement incident that occurred 16 March 2009. The ARCOM was awarded to the applicant on 23 October 2009 for exceptionally meritorious service in support of OEF. Additionally, the applicant was promoted to specialist (E- 4) on 13 May 2010. Upon returning from deployment the struggle with untreated PTSD led to the charges that resulted in the applicant agreeing to a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. A missed formation for EIB testing resulted in three soldiers sent to get the applicant. The applicant was thrown in jail despite their outward display of mental health issues, the chain of command did nothing to aid the applicant's wellbeing. After a few days in jail, the applicant was escorted to the command only to meet with the JAG concerning the charges preferred. The JAG advised of their options of facing five to six years in prison at trial or potentially plead "no contest" and be discharged. The applicant, a model soldier, voluntary requested discharge ILO of court-martial on 3 May 2011, after having spent several days in jail further traumatizing them. The applicant was discharged in-lieu-of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable (UOTHC) characterization of service. A medical and mental examination was not required for a voluntary discharge ILO trial by court- martial but could have been requested by the service member. The applicant's OMPF is void of a request. The applicant sought mental health assistance through the Veteran's Administration (VA). They provided a VA disability rating decision, dated 3 September 2018, reflecting the applicant has 70 percent disability for PTSD with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate (also claimed as depression and sleep disturbances) with lumbosacral strain, tinnitus, traumatic brain injury (TBI), left carpal tunnel syndrome, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and posttraumatic headaches associated with TBI also identified as service connected. Since successfully managing their PTSD, they have become a model member of the community who continues to live Army Values. The applicant attained a bachelor's degree December 2017. They are currently working in banking while completing their master's degree. Through counsel, the applicant contends, in effect, PTSD mitigates the misconduct. The applicant contends they were a model Soldier and considering their stellar military career, the incident that led to their discharge is relatively minor when considering the significant mental anguish, they were suffering due to untreated PTSD. The applicant contends had a greater effort been provided for rehabilitation instead of labeling them damaged goods, they would probably still be in the Army. The third-party statements attest to the fact that the applicant was a brave and model Soldier who served their country in the time of war, suffered great loss and subsequently not given a fair opportunity to rehabilitate and continue their career. They all recognize the applicant's notable military service and great accomplishments after leaving the Army. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether its supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Depression and Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Depression and Anxiety Disorder NOS with discussion of combat trauma. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma, avoidance, and difficulty with authority, the applicant's combat related PTSD mitigates the basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's condition or experience outweighed the listed basis for separation for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends they were a model Soldier and in light of their stellar military career, the incident that led to their discharge was relatively minor when considering the significant mental anguish, they were suffering due to untreated PTSD. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's FTRs, disobeying a lawful order and disrespect towards NCOs. (2) The applicant, through counsel contends had a greater effort to provide rehabilitation been made instead of labeling them as damaged goods, they would still be wearing ACUs. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's FTRs, disobeying a lawful order and disrespect towards NCOs basis for separation. (3) The applicant, through counsel, contends they were dealing with depression along with suicidal ideations at which they sought counseling believing they were suffering from PTSD. Due to the stigma associated with PTSD especially in their command they refrained from notifying anyone. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's FTRs, disobeying a lawful order and disrespect towards NCOs. (4) The applicant, through counsel contends they made efforts to self-improve for positive experiences including requesting to attend college courses and other military training but was denied while they watched other soldiers being given the opportunities. The applicant even requested a transfer to a new [duty] location on two separate occasions, in hopes a change of scenery would assist in recovery, however, the requests were denied. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's FTRs, disobeying a lawful order and disrespect towards NCOs basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. Due to the applicant's medical diagnosis the board determined the current RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to upgrade it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's FTRs, disobeying a lawful order and disrespect towards NCOs. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change. The Board determined, given the applicant's medical diagnosis that the current RE code is proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210016807 1