1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 December 2021 b. Date Received: 5 January 2022 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, that an upgrade of the discharge is for the purpose of being able to go to college. The applicant contends that the PTSD was never accounted for during the court-martial. The applicant has lost many jobs out of the Army due to PTSD symptoms. The applicant pattern of missing work like he did when he was AWOL has only gotten worse due to the PTSD when working from home, the applicant is extremely successful. When needing to go to a job site or interact with people the applicant tends to not go because of the PTSD symptoms. The applicant doesn't like being around people very much, let alone having to go into an office 5 days a week, it just doesn't sit okay in the applicant head. The applicant gets anxiety attacks etc. The applicant would really like to go back to school to get a degree in a field the applicant can work from home in. The applicant just finished a certification course for project managements and would like to major in Mechanical Engineering. The applicant is currently working for a plumbing company as a plumbing designer and would like to be able to become a full PE. Other than the issue with AWOL the applicant served honorably, earning the CIB in Iraq. The applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal during the same time. The applicant goal as a child was always to serve and serve honorably. The applicant never missed a day until returning from Iraq, and even now the applicant still wishes to serve. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic hearing conducted on 17 October 2022, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, 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. Please see Section 10 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: 8 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 May 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, separation actions action was initiated for patterns of misconduct; for wrongfully and willfully impersonating a commissioned officer of the Army by publicly wearing the uniform and insignia of rank of a Lieutenant on 1 August 2009; Being absent without leave from his unit between 22 October 2010 and 27 October 2010; Making a false statement to 1LT O and SGT G on or about 28 October 2010 Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 November 2010; Failing to obey an order given by SGT M.J.G., on or about 8 November 2010; Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 22 November 2010; Making a false statement to SSG J.J.C., on or about 22 November 2010; and Disobeying an order from SSG J.J.C., on or about 22 November 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 May 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 10 June 2010, the separation authority directed the separation of the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12b, for Patterns of Misconduct with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 October 2008 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (12 September 2009 to 28 August 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 2 March 2010, for wrongfully and willfully impersonating a commissioned officer of the Army by publicly wearing the uniform and insignia of rank of a Lieutenant of the United States Army. The punishment received was not noted on the available document. DA Form's 4187 (Personnel Action) changing the applicant's duty status as follows: OLV to AWOL, effective 22 October 2010; and AWOL to Present for Duty (PDY), effective 27 October 2010 FG Article 15 dated 15 December 2010, for being absent without leave from 22 October 2010 until 27 October 2010 and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 November 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction toe E-2, forfeiture of $811.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and an oral admonition. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for 5 days (22 October 2020 to 26 October 2020) / mode of return unknown. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 February 2011, indicates the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in any administrative proceedings. The applicant was evaluated for symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The applicant did not exhibit PTSD or TBI or any other mental health disorder that would have required a medical evaluation board. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Medical documents submitted by the applicant with his application from the Department of Veterans Affairs, indicate the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for SIMD vs MDD, Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Dependence and SIMD vs MDD; PTSD; Alcohol use NOS with binge drinking; Cannabis Dependence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Veterans Affairs medical treatment documents; and two impact / statements of support. The letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicates the applicant was been awarded 100 percent service-connected disability. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since his discharge he has finished a certification course for project management and would like to major in Mechanical Engineering. 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (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 "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 honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for wrongfully and willfully impersonating a commissioned officer of the Army by publicly wearing the uniform and insignia of rank of a Lieutenant, being absent without leave from his unit between 22 October 2010 and 27 October 2010; making a false statement to 1LT O and SGT G; failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; failing to obey an order given by SGT M.J.G.; failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; making a false statement to SSG J.J.C.; and disobeying an order from SSG J.J.C. On 10 June 2010, the separation authority directed the separation of the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12b, for Patterns of Misconduct with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant should have been separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14- 12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." However, the DD Form 214 under review indicates 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 being "Misconduct Conduct," and the separation code being "JKQ." The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that an upgrade of the discharge is for the purpose of being able to go to college. The applicant contends that the PTSD was never accounted for during the court-martial. The applicant has lost many jobs out of the Army due to PTSD symptoms. The applicant pattern of missing work like he did when he was AWOL has only gotten worse due to the PTSD when working from home, the applicant is extremely successful. When needing to go to a job site or interact with people the applicant tends to not go because of the PTSD symptoms. The applicant doesn't like being around people very much, let alone having to go into an office 5 days a week, it just doesn't sit okay in the applicant head. The applicant gets anxiety attacks etc. The applicant would really like to go back to school to get a degree in a field the applicant can work from home in. The applicant just finished a certification course for project managements and would like to major in Mechanical Engineering. The applicant is currently working for a plumbing company as a plumbing designer and would like to be able to become a full PE. Other than the issue with AWOL the applicant served honorably, earning the CIB in Iraq. The applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal during the same time. The applicant goal as a child was always to serve and serve honorably. The applicant never missed a day until returning from Iraq, and even now the applicant still wishes to serve. The applicant's contentions were noted; evidence in the 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. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 February 2011, indicates the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in any administrative proceedings. The applicant was evaluated for symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The applicant did not exhibit PTSD or TBI or any other mental health disorder that would have required a medical evaluation board. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Evidence submitted by the applicant with his application indicates he has been awarded 100 percent service-connected disability and that the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for SIMD vs MDD, Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis Dependence and SIMD vs MDD; PTSD; Alcohol use NOS with binge drinking; Cannabis Dependence. However, it should be noted; 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 the discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing that would have warranted the applicant separation processing through medical channels at the time of discharge. The applicant expressed the desire for an upgrade of the discharge for the purpose of being able to go to college. 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. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: The applicant is diagnosed with combat related PTSD with additional diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Cannabis Dependence. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of PTSD with additional diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Cannabis Dependence. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between trauma and avoidance and difficulty with authority, the applicant's AWOL, FTRs, and disobeying orders are mitigated. As for the as the false official statements, this could be viewed as part of avoidance and difficulty with authority given they are linked to the mitigated offenses. However, impersonating a commissioned officer is unmitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience partially outweighed the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending his PTSD was never accounted for during his court-martial. He has lost many jobs out of the Army due to his PTSD symptoms. His pattern of missing work like he did when he was AWOL has only gotten worse due to his PTSD when working from home, he is extremely successful. When needing to go to a job site or interact with people he tends to not go because of his PTSD symptoms. He doesn't like being around people very much, lets alone having to go into an office 5 days a week, it just doesn't sit okay in his head. He gets anxiety attacks etc. Other than his issue with AWOL he served honorably, earning his CIB in Iraq. He was awarded an Army Achievement Medal during the same time. His goal as a child was always to serve and serve honorably. He never missed a day until he returned from Iraq, and even now he still wishes he was serving. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records. It revealed the applicant was diagnosed with combat-related PTSD and OBHI. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to characterization to Honorable. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, 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. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD and OBHI mitigated the applicant's basis for separation. 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, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 11. 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 AR20220004111 1