1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 October 2022 b. Date Received: 24 October 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, dedicating the life to serving the great country in a way the applicant believed was best and the way the applicant was taught by the sergeants. The applicant's only infraction was because of a lack of judgment. The goals to which the applicant once aspired are now dreams. The applicant worked hard through the remaining term of service, doing the best to live up to the Army Values and standards, after being let down time and time again by those whom the applicant once looked upon as mentors. The applicant requests reconsideration of the punishment given to the applicant. The applicant hopes to pave the way to a better life. The applicant indicates post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and other mental health issues are related to the request. The applicant humbly requests the correction be made as the applicant has been compliant with all statutes and an outstanding member of society. The applicant desires to pursue a better life and the opportunities which come with it. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge was inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board also voted no change to the narrative reason for separation and no change to the reentry code. 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635-200 / JFV / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 March 2022 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 June 2020 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 1 year, 8 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Bar to Continued Service, approved 16 November 2021, reflects the applicant was barred for being disrespectful to a senior noncommissioned officer. The applicant elected not to make a statement. Four Developmental Counseling Forms reflect the applicant was counseled on 5, 9 November and 10 December 2021, for refusing a direct order to be vaccinated. The applicant refused to be vaccinated with the COVID 19 vaccine and indicated the applicant was willing to accept consequences related to the decision. On 1 December 2021, the applicant was counseled and informed of the risks, benefits, and adverse effects of the mandatory COVID 19 vaccine. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 27 January 2022, reflects the applicant received a lawful order to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and despite multiple opportunities to receive the vaccine, the applicant failed to comply with the order. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, with a narrative reason of Condition, Not a Disability. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant provided two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letters, dated 17 and 28 October 2022, reflecting the VA rated the applicant 90 percent service-connected disabled, effective 1 April 2022. The medical conditions which were evaluated and/or rated are not disclosed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None / The VA letter is void of the specific medical conditions which were rated 90 percent disabled. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (multiple copies); DD Form 214; Two DD Forms 293 (multiple copies); Two third party VA Statements of Support of Claim; and two VA compensation letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been compliant with all statutes and is an outstanding member of society. 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) 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 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1 states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (6) Paragraph 5-14 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier's ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. (7) 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 "JFV" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Condition, Not a Disability (chapter 5-14). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, by reason of "Condition, Not a Disability," with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, PTSD, TBI, and other mental health conditions are related to the request for an upgrade. The applicant provided a copy of the VA compensation letter indicating the VA rated the applicant 90 percent service-connected disability. The letter did not disclose the medical conditions which were evaluated and/or rated. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends, in effect, the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends, in effect, good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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. The applicant contends, in effect, being compliant with all statutes and is an outstanding member of society. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: In-service diagnoses include an Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD secondary to childhood and Opiate Abuse. Post- service, the applicant is 100% service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. In-service diagnoses include an Adjustment Disorder, MDD, PTSD secondary to childhood and Opiate Abuse. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that although the discharge is proper and equitable, an upgrade to Honorable is permissible given the VA has afforded him a service-connected PTSD diagnosis. (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 outweighed the basis of separation. b. Prior Decisions Cited: None c. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends PTSD, TBI, and other mental health conditions are related to the request for an upgrade. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's charges. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's charges. (3) The applicant contends good service. 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 BH Condition (Adjustment Disorder) accepted basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare, or VA loans, do 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. (5) The applicant contends being compliant with all statutes and is outstanding member of society. 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 basis for separation. (6) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. 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 basis for separation. d. The Board determined the discharge was inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board also voted no change to the narrative reason and no change to the reentry code. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, record of service, the frequency and nature of misconduct, and the reason for separation. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's PTSD does mitigate the applicant's separation for a BH condition. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was inequitable. (2) The Board voted no change the reason for discharge based on the accepted basis of separation for a BH condition. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No d. Change RE Code to: No e. Change Authority to: No 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 AR20230001448 1