1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 May 2018 b. Date Received: 29 May 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and be transferred to the Retired Reserve. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was injured in April 2007 while on active duty. An MRI showed that the applicant had a Medial Meniscal Tear. On 4 June 2007, the applicant was given a referral for surgery. On 16 June 2007, orders were amended to release the applicant from active duty. The applicant was placed in the VA system and was to have surgery in 2008. The applicant was then placed back on the active duty system and had surgery October 2010. During this time, the applicant was turned down for ADME orders and did not receive any type of relief until February 2008 and every six to eight month increments until being released back to a civilian job. The applicant was deemed fit for duty, but the command believed the applicant was not. The applicant returned to his civilian job for one day, but was then laid off permanently. The applicant then had to take a lesser paying job and eventually lost the family and was homeless until the applicant went to stay with a high school friend. During the period of April 2007 to January 2013, the applicant had many financial problems, mental and physical health problems due to an Active Duty injury, where the applicant had received little or no help from the Command. During this time the applicant was reprimanded for not paying bills and bounced around in the health care system. The applicant became very stressed and ill and made a poor judgement after being homeless, which led to discharge. During this time, the applicant filed several Congressional requests, which were not taken seriously by the Command. The applicant lost a job, security clearance and most importantly, a family. 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 BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant is 40% service-connected for non-BH diagnoses from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 11 December 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 June 2013 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: Orders 13-148-00022, dated 28 May 2013, reflects the applicant was discharged from the USAR, effective 1 June 2013. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: NIF / The applicant's service record is void of his most recent reenlistment document. The record reflects he last reenlisted in the USAR on 2 April 1989, for a period of 6 years, which would have given him an ETS of 1 April 1995. It appears, he may have reenlisted between 2007 and 2008. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: NIF / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 30 years d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 2 June 1983 - 1 April 1989 / HD IADT, 13 July 1983 - 11 November 1983 / HD (Concurrent Service) USAR, 2 April 1989 - 1 April 1995 (est) / HD (Service record is void of any other reenlistment records) AD, 10 June 1996 - 30 September 1996 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 20 January 2007 - 16 June 2007 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM, NDSM-2, NCOPDR-2, ASR, AFRM g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2004 - 8 October 2011 / Fully Capable 8 October 2011 - 7 October 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 1 November 2007, for dereliction in failing to properly maintain his Bank of America Government Travel Card (GTC) account in violation of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-22. The imposing authority had reviewed the information relating to this account and as of 12 October 2007, his account is over 90 days delinquent in the amount of $2,644.94. The evidence substantiated he failed to pay his debt to his creditor in a timely manner. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 2173; DD Form 293; medical records with allied documents; GOMOR; MRB request; Fit for Duty (memo); Congressional request. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. 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. 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, a narrative reason change and be transferred to the Retired Reserve. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. However, the service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army Reserve. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted discharge Orders 13-148-00022, dated 28 May 2013. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears 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 corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends he should be transferred to the Retired Reserve. However, the applicant's request does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and an 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 he was deemed fit for duty, but his command believed he was not. Further, he became homeless, and he received no help from his command. However, 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. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends he was suffering from mental health issues. However, the service record contains no evidence of mental health disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the 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. 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 December 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 AR20180008210 1