1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 May 2017 b. Date Received: 19 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was not at risk of RCP and that changes in policy occur frequently. The current discharge, also condemns other service options, if a college degree is obtained or a promotion. The applicant would like to rejoin active service, but would have to receive a waiver to enter. Changing the code would ease the process of reentry and any clarification could ease the process for recruitment team. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood/with depressed mood and Alcohol Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected; 30% for PTSD and 10% for TBI from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and TBI), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178 / Chapter 13 / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 May 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 27 February 2017, the applicant's commander mailed him the notification via certified mail, with a suspense of 30 days to acknowledge the notice and his rights. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Accrued nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled inactive duty training during a one- year period. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving his right to counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving his right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 March 2015 / 3 years / The applicant's service record reflects he enlisted in the USAR on 3 March 2015, while still on Active Duty. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15F1S, ACFT Electrician / 9 years, 7 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 October 2007 - 10 January 2010 / HD RA, 11 January 2010 - 12 June 2013 / HD RA, 13 June 2013 - 12 June 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (29 September 2010 - 20 January 2011; 21 July 2011 - 21 September 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, PUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 3 November 2015, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 30 October 2015 (MUTA 1 and 2) 31 October 2015 (MUTA 1 and 2) Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 6 December 2015, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 5 December 2015 (MUTA 1 and 2) 6 December 2015 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 6 December 2015, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 7 December 2015. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 22 February 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 20 February 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) 21 February 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 22 February 2016, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 24 February 2016. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 26 April 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 23 April 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) 24 April 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 26 April 2016, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 26 April 2016. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 7 November 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 5 November 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) 6 November 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 7 November 2016, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 8 November 2016. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 5 December 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 3 December 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) 4 December 2016 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 5 December 2016, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 6 December 2016. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 9 January 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 8 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 9 January 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 6 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) 7 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) 8 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 9 January 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 12 January 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 2 February 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 2 February 2017. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 13 February 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 11 February 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) 12 February 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 13 February 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 21 February 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notification of Separation, dated 27 February 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 27 February 2017. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 14 March 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 11 March 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) 12 March 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 17 March 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 14 March 2017. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 4 April 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 1 April 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) 2 April 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) Memorandum, dated 5 April 2017, reflects the applicant failed to complete and return the Acknowledgement, Election, and Waiver of Rights form within 30 days, nor did he respond by any other means, both before and since the suspense. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 4 April 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 6 April 2017. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: As described in previous paragraph 4h. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. AR 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in- the Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. Army policy states possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline and diminished the quality of his service by his refusal to participate in unit drills. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. The applicant requests a RE code change. However, when service members are discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve, orders are published indicating the effective date and characterization of the discharge. Narrative reasons and RE Codes are not included in the order. Insomuch as the applicant's discharge order does include these elements, there is no basis to change the discharge order. Further, if the applicant desires to rejoin the military, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligiblility. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and TBI), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170009491 1