1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 June 2022 b. Date Received: 6 July 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, a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) condition was a contributing factor in the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty on two separate occasions; made a false official statement on or about 29 July 2015; on or about 24 July 2015, the applicant left the appointed place of duty without authority; and on or about 24 July 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant waived the right to consult with counsel on 28 September 2015. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 4 years, 4 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 August 2011 – 30 September 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (22 February 2013 – 22 November 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, USAF GCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 11 February 2015, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to the appointed place of duty; was disrespectful in deportment towards a superior noncommissioned officer; failed to obey a lawful order; treated a superior noncommissioned officer with contempt; and wrongfully communicated a threat to kill or get someone to kill a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2; forfeiture of $867 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 11 August 2015; extra duty and restriction for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 11 August 2015; and an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 30 July 2015, reflects the applicant was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and was derelict in the performance of duties on or about 18 June 2015. The punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $360 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 30 August 2015; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 22 June 2015, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. There was screened for PTSD and the screen was negative. The applicant was counsel on multiple occasions for various forms of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health Condition(s): Applicant asserts PTSD in-service in self-authored statement. 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 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 14-2b 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. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends a PTSD condition was a contributing factor in the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 22 June 2015, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for PTSD and the screen was negative. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 16 December 2022, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment DO with anxiety and depressed mood; Traumatic Brain Injury, Depression; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes The Board's Medical Advisor found diagnoses of Adjustment DO and Depression were made on active duty. Service connection establishes that PTSD began during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has several BH conditions: PTSD, mild TBI and MDD, which mitigate some of the misconduct. As there is an association between these conditions and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between these diagnoses and the applicant’s history of multiple FTRs and leaving the place of duty without permission. As there is an association between PTSD/TBI and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between these conditions and the offense of failing to obey a lawful order. Neither PTSD, TBI nor Major Depressive DO mitigate the offenses of making a false official statement and threatening to kill a NCO given that these conditions do not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. In the advisor’s opinion, the mitigation provided by liberal consideration in this case does not outweigh the totality of the applicant’s misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, including the Board Medical Advisor’s opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s PTSD, mTBI, and MMD mitigate applicant’s FTRs and leaving place of duty without permission, these conditions do not outweigh applicant’s offenses of making a false official statement and threatening to kill a NCO for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the PTSD condition was a contributing factor in the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions did contribute to portions of the applicant’s misconduct. Ultimately, the Board found that applicant’s PTSD, MDD, and mTBI did not fully outweigh applicant’s misconduct due to the premeditated and severe nature of the offenses – making a false official statement and threatening to kill a NCO. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD, MDD, Anxiety Disorder, mTBI, did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of threatening to kill a NCO and making a false official statement. 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, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20220010394 1