1. Applicant's a. Application Date: 19 August 2022 b. Date Received: 29 August 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, the discharge was reprisal due to a report made by the applicant to the Inspector General (IG). The applicant contends a large portion of the counseling statement used to create a paper trail were related to the applicant not returning advances from a squad leader. The applicant was not given the opportunity to reclassify or given proper time to pass the army physical fitness test (APFT) after an injury. The applicant contends being mistreated by the command. The applicant contends the discharge is not an accurate reflection of the applicant's service. (The applicant's complete statement is available for the board's review) b. Board Type and Decision: In a personal appearance conducted on 17 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was improper based on the applicant's PTSD, MST, and GAD mitigating the discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code of SA, and the reentry code to RE-1. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 August 2010 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: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 April 2009 / 5 years (DD Form 214 show 4 August 2005, however, the Enlistment contract shows 30 April 2009). b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 1 year College / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 2 years, 3 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: DD Form 214, Record of Service, block d, pertaining to the applicant prior active service contract is not located in the applicant's AMHRR. e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, personal statement, letters of support-5 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. (5) 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. 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. 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, paragraph 13, by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends, the discharge was reprisal due to a report made by the applicant to IG. The applicant contends a large portion of the counseling statement used to create a paper trail were related to the applicant not returning advances from a squad leader. The applicant contends not given the opportunity to reclassify or given proper time to pass the APFT after an injury. The applicant contends mistreatment by the command. There is no evidence in the available AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the mistreatment It is the applicant responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends the discharge is not an accurate reflection of the applicant's service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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): N/A 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): N/A 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment DO with depressed mood; Dysthymic DO; PTSD due to MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Adjustment DO and Dysthymic DO were diagnosed while applicant was in the military. VA service connection of 30% for PTSD due to MST establishes it occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has two mitigating BH conditions, PTSD and GAD, as well as a mitigating experience, MST. As there is an association between PTSD/MST/GAD and impaired occupational performance, there is a nexus between the applicant's history of PTSD/MST/GAD and the APFT failure and failure in language school. Additionally, as there is an association between PTSD/MST and difficulty with obeying authority figures, there is a nexus between these conditions and the applicant violation of a no-contact order. (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 PTSD, MST, and GAD outweighs the discharge as the APFT failure is fully mitigated by these conditions. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, the discharge was reprisal due to a report made by the applicant to IG. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not make a determination due to the discharge being fully mitigated by the applicant's PSTD, MST, and GAD. (2) The applicant contends a large portion of the counseling statement used to create a paper trail were related to the applicant not returning advances from a squad leader. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not make a determination due to the discharge being fully mitigated by the applicant's PSTD, MST, and GAD. (3) The applicant contends the applicant was not given the opportunity to reclassify or given proper time to pass the APFT after an injury. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not make a determination due to the discharge being fully mitigated by the applicant's PSTD, MST, and GAD. (4) The applicant contends the discharge is not an accurate reflection of the applicant's service. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately did not make a determination due to the discharge being fully mitigated by the applicant's PSTD, MST, and GAD. c. The Board determined that the discharge was improper based on the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Military Sexual Trauma, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder fully mitigating the discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code of SA, and the reentry code to RE-1. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD, MST, and GAD mitigated the applicant's APFT failure. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is SA. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-1. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: RE-1 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20220010602 1