1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 July 2017 b. Date Received: 31 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the discharge received is inconsistent with discharge policy and the UCMJ. The applicant was separated due to failing to adapt to the military life. The applicant was struggling with a severe anxiety and had informed the chain of command. The applicant continued to drill with the unit and never displayed any conduct that was unbecoming. The UOTH is reserved for those Soldiers who exhibit bad conduct, or committed criminal offenses-the applicant had done neither. The current discharge is causing unnecessary hardship and difficulty with finding employment. In December 2016, the applicant completed a bachelor's degree and "graduated cum laude." 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 no available information for review. The applicant has not received care at the VA. In summary, due to the basis of separation not being available, medical mitigation for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army cannot be made at this time. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 April 2014 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 April 2010 / 8-year MSO b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 91J10, Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repairer / 4 years, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (2 April 2010 to 1 August 2010) / NA IADT (2 August 2010 to 8 February 2011) / HD USAR (19 February 2011 - Continued Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 27 July 2017, with self-authored statement; university transcript; and two character reference and letters of recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he completed his bachelor's degree and graduated cum laude. 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 accrued 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. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided 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) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided 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; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance 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. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully examining the applicant's available military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service and the merit of his issues. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the US Army Reserve. However, the record contains a properly constituted discharge orders. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge as under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 135-178, and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant provided no independent and insufficient corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the US Army Reserve. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete 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 was unjust because he was struggling with a severe anxiety; he informed his chain of command and continued to drill with his unit; and he never displayed any conduct that was unbecoming. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by him to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the available record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 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. In consideration of the applicant's post service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance, recognizing his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. Based on the available record, 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20170012378 1