1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 February 2018 b. Date Received: 7 March 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the request is based on restoring honor to one's name and life. An upgrade would also bring about a better way of life for oneself. At the time, the applicant was being seen at a VA medical facility, when absences were accrued. By the time, the chain of command became aware of the situation, it was too late to reverse the discharge orders. 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 Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Paranoid Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, Cannabis Abuse, and Cocaine Abuse. 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 1 May 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable 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. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBHI and PTSD). 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: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 June 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to attend at least nine Army Reserve Training Battle Assemblies within a one-year period and failed to provide a valid excuse for his absences. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Incomplete / Failed to respond with election of rights (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived all rights by failing to respond to notification delivered to the applicant on 10 June 2013. (According to AR 135-178, paragraph 2- 9c(4), "a discharge with service characterized as [UOTHC] may be issued without board action if the [applicant] waives [his] right to board action." Paragraph 3-11a(12) provides that "[t]he right to waive the rights of paragraphs 3-11a(4)-(10), in writing ... after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel, and that failure to respond within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the notification memorandum ... will constitute a waiver of the right." (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 September 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (Pursuant to Chapter 13, AR 135-178, for Unsatisfactory Participation) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 August 2008 / 6 years in Selected Reserve of the 8-year MSO b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 21M10, Firefighter and 12M duty MOS / 5 years, 2 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (11 August 2008 to 14 November 2009) / NA MOB OEF (15 November 2009 to 29 December 2010) / HD USAR (30 December 2010 - Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (22 December 2009 to 13 November 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Instructions for Unexcused Absence, dated 13 March 2013, indicates the applicant was absent from two 8 March 2013, unit training assemblies with an accrual of two unexcused absences within a one-year period. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 13 March 2013, indicates the Human Resource NCO, mailed a letter of instruction-unexcused absence, dated 13 March 2013 via certified mail to the applicant at his last known address. Return Receipt shows the applicant received the notification on 15 March 2013. A Return Receipt shows the applicant received an unknown notification from his unit on 28 April 2013. Letter of Instructions for Unexcused Absence, dated 20 May 2013, indicates the applicant was absent from 16-17 May 2013, unit training assemblies or multiple unit training assembly with an accrual of five unexcused absences within a one-year period. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 21 May 2013, indicates the Human Resource NCO mailed a letter of instruction-unexcused absence, dated 20 May 2013 via certified mail to the applicant at his last known address. Letters of Instructions for Unexcused Absence, dated 2 June 2013, indicates the applicant was absent from the 1-2 June 2013, unit training assemblies or multiple unit training assemblies with an accrual of nine unexcused absences within a one-year period. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 3 June 2013, indicates the Human Resource NCO mailed a letter of instruction-unexcused absence, dated 2 June 2013 via certified mail to the applicant at his last known address. Return Receipt, dated 7 June 2013, showed no signature of any recipient. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 7 June 2013, indicates the Human Resource NCO mailed the Notification of Separation Proceeding letter, dated 6 June 2013 via certified mail to the applicant at his last known address. Return Receipt shows the applicant received the notification on 10 June 2013. 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 12 February 2018; VA Certification of Visit, dated 16 May 2013; applicant's rebuttal, dated 12 June 2013; and discharge Orders. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 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 an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By his absences from several Army Reserve Training Battle Assemblies, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 on US Army Reserve. The record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed the discharge packet to his last known address via certified mail. Army Regulation 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier's refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because at the time, he was being seen at a VA medical facility, when absences were accrued, and by the time, his chain of command became aware of his situation, it was too late to reverse his discharge process. 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 sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. 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. Insofar as being seen by a VA medical facility, the applicant provided no further information or documentary evidence of an official medical diagnosis by a competent medical authority. If there is a behavioral health issues for which he was been seen, the applicant would have to provide documentary evidence of any behavioral health diagnosis and treatment. If based on medical records available to the ADRB (Board), and based on that available behavioral health medical information, the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In addition, 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., an official documentary evidence of any behavioral health diagnoses, if any) for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 1 May 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable 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. in-service and post- service diagnoses of OBHI and PTSD). 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 AR20180003856 1