1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 June 2007 b. Date Received: 22 May 2022 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the military's actions complicated the applicant's undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) before being discharged. The Army failed the applicant and years after the applicant's 2007 discharge, it came to light that the military was pressuring their medical professionals to shy away from diagnosing Soldiers with PTSD. During the applicant's time in Iraq, the applicant started to feel "different" but couldn't quite put a finger on what was happening. The applicant became concerned with the things the applicant had been seeing and some of the coworkers' reactions. The applicant reached out for help while in Iraq but did not feel the available help was adequate. One day some Soldiers were playing around and picked up a can of dust cleaner as a joke and inhaled it. Apparently, this was a "thing" that they did that the applicant had never seen or witnessed prior to deployment. The applicant tried it, which was a first mistake and had never tried any illegal drug or done anything of the sort prior to this. As time progressed, the applicant began huffing more and more. After returning stateside, the applicant reached out to a therapist, and thought the therapy was stagnant. The applicant asked the therapist if the applicant could have PTSD, which was adamantly denied. The applicant felt the therapist betrayed patient-doctor confidentiality after the therapist informed the applicant's chain of command of the applicant's intentions to be interview by the National Public Radio. The applicant's symptoms worsened but was not receiving treatment because the applicant was never diagnosed with PTSD and no longer trusted the doctor. The therapist came up with any and every excuse to justify the applicant's feelings and behavior making the applicant feel like the applicant was crazy and the usage increased. In an effort to control the applicant's usage, the applicant was placed in the hospital to live on the same floor the applicant used to work. It was during this time that they were deciding whether or not to discharge the applicant medically. The medical discharge was denied, and the applicant was sent to rehabilitation. After 28 days in rehab, they sent the applicant back into the same circumstances. The applicant continued to use, and then was sent to solitary confinement in an all-male prison for 2 months until discharged. After 12 years of active service, the applicant applied for Veterans Affairs (VA) disability and was awarded 90 percent disability rating and after appealing the applicant was awarded 100 percent permanent and total disability with 70 percent for PTSD. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 10 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - huffing aerosol and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable, and change to the narrative reason for separation to Miscellaneous/General Reasons, with a corresponding separation code of JND. 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13 / DFS / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 June 2007 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) has a part of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided several documents which are described below in 3c(1) through (4). (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: On 29 March 2007, the applicant waived legal counsel. (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to applicant's request for Resignation, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24. (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 12 March 2004 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 31 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 66H, Medical Surgical Nurse / 12 years, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 May 1995 - 23 July 1998 / HD RA, 24 July 1998 - 24 August 2000 / HD RA, 25 August 2000 - 11 March 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (2 December 2004 - 3 December 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NCOER, July 1996 - August 1998 / Fully Capable NCOER, September 1998 - September 1999 / Fully Capable NCOER, October 1999 - February 2001 / Among the Best NCOER, March 2001 - December 2001 / Fully Capable OER, 22 May 2004 - 11 September 2005 / Best Qualified OER, 12 September 2005 - 24 May 2006 / Best Qualified OER, 25 May 2006 - 24 May 2007 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Provided by the applicant, General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 9 March 2007, reflects the applicant was huffing and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating substance on 28 February 2007. Provided by the applicant, Oklahoma Uniform Incident/Offense Report and Report of Incident, dated 28 February 2007, reports that two officers observed the applicant inhaling from an aerosol can (clean safe dust remover) several times while in a car still running, car in drive, and foot on brake. After managing to get the applicant to unlock the door, the officers transported the applicant to the hospital and then issued an arrest and summons with a court date of 5 March 2007. Orders 162-0691, dated 11 June 2007, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 12 June 2007 from the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 3-13, with a narrative reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court- Martial. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant's signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA medical record, (Exhibit Q - page 35 of 238) shows the applicant has a VA disability rating of 100 percent with 70 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online DD Form 293; DD Form 293; legal retainer; exhibits A through BB, includes GOMOR, enlisted and officer DD Forms 214, NCOERs, OERs, VA medical records, articles for mental health, 6 letters of support, Kurta and Wilkie Memorandums. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant earned a Master of Science Degree in Nursing and Public Administration in 2012. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 3, prescribes the rules for processing voluntary resignations. Except as provided in paragraph 3-1b, any officer of the RA or USAR may tender a resignation under the provisions of this chapter. SECARMY (or designee) may accept resignations and orders will be issued by direction of the CG, HRC. An officer whose resignation has been accepted will be separated on the date specified in DA's orders or as otherwise directed by the DA. An appropriate discharge certificate as specified by the CG, HRC, will be furnished by the appropriate commander at the time the officer is separated. The date of separation, as specified or directed, will not be changed without prior approval of HQDA nor can valid separation orders be revoked subsequent to the specified or directed date of separation. (5) Paragraph 3-9 (previously 3-13), outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. (6) Paragraph 3-9i, states an officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 "DFS" as the appropriate code to assign Officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR includes partial 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, which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-13 (in effect at the time), by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 3, paragraph 3-13 (in effect at the time), AR 600-8-24, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "DFS." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends, in effect, the Army failed the applicant, and their actions complicated the applicant's undiagnosed PTSD before being discharged. The applicant states in a self- authored letter to have reached out for help while in Iraq but did not feel the available help was adequate. After returning stateside, the applicant reached out to a therapist, and thought the therapy was stagnant and the therapist adamantly denied that the applicant had PTSD. The applicant was denied a medical discharge; however, there is no record of this in the AMHRR and the applicant did not provide evidence of it other than the statement. The applicant provided two news articles wherein they report findings of possible pressure not to diagnose Soldiers with PTSD. The applicant contends, in effect, symptoms worsened, but did not receive treatment because the applicant was never diagnosed with PTSD and the applicant began huffing more and more. The applicant provided a news article, dated June 2017, that discusses reckless self-destructive behavior and PTSD in Veterans. It states military personnel engage in reckless and self- destructive behaviors including substance abuse, self-harm, excessive gambling, and aggression more frequently than their civilian counterparts. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided VA medical records indicating a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD. The VA medical records show the applicant's history of present illness as: diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder recurrent. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation / behavioral health evaluation. 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. One of the statements speaks to the drastic change they saw in the applicant after returning from Iraq. 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 and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): (Counsel) 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: PTSD; Anxiety DO NOS: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD); Major Depressive DO (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found PTSD; Anxiety DO NOS: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD); Major Depressive DO (MDD) were diagnosed while on active duty. VA service connection for PTSD (70%) establishes it occurred during active duty. (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 MDD. As PTSD/MDD is associated with the use of illicit drugs to self-medicate painful emotional symptoms, there is a nexus between the diagnosis and DUI secondary to huffing. Applicant's diagnosis of Anxiety DO NOS is subsumed under the PTSD diagnosis. Applicant's diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder does not mitigate the misconduct given that OCD does not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - huffing aerosol and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating substance - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board found validity in this contention and voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service as well as narrative reason for discharge based on the applicant's PTSD and MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the Army failed the applicant, and their actions further complicated the applicant's undiagnosed PTSD, for which the applicant is now service connected by the VA, before being discharged. 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 and MDD outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD and MDD outweighing the basis for separation - huffing aerosol and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Thus, relief is warranted. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD and MDD outweighed the basis for separation - huffing aerosol and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Miscellaneous/General Reasons under the same pretexts. Thus, the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JND. (3) As there was no RE-code listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being an Officer, no upgrade action is required for this item. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Miscellaneous/General Reasons / JND d. Change Authority to: AR 600-8-24 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 AR20230006258 1