1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 August 2018 b. Date Received: 20 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Board would consider the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade of uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, had a mental disorder during service. Although the VA stated the applicant's service was dishonorable, the applicant has received two honorable discharges upon separation from the Army. The applicant was not given any type of mental evaluation to see if there was a disability. VA medical records show that the applicant has a mental disorder and feels that it was the result of an "event" that occurred during military service. 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 behavioral health diagnoses while in-service. The applicant does not have any active VA medical records at the time of this application. In summary, the applicant does not have a behavioral health diagnoses that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 17 September 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 August 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Since his arrival to the unit, he has been unable to follow instructions. He has been counseled about the following deficiencies: being late to formations, not making his bunk prior to formations, leaving his wall locker unsecured, not standing at the appropriate position, not conducting proper behavior while in formations, leaving his weapon unsecured, and not wearing his uniform properly. His performance and behavior demonstrated that he cannot adapt to the military environment. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 31 August 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 September 2009 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 July 2009 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 month, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for being recommended for an entry level separation; failing to adapt to a military environment; his action unbecoming of a Soldier; being late to formations on a daily basis; leaving his wall locker unsecured; disobeying NCOs; leaving his weapon unsecured; hindering the performance of his platoon; not making his bunk; and failing to follow orders. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge, dated 13 August 2018; DD Form 214 for service ending 22 October 1982, and Transcript of Military Record (belonging to and applicable to a SPC J. T. Moore, Jr. with a different social security number(last four: 5457)); and Statement in Support of Claim, dated 18 May 2018 (also using social security number ending in 5447 and name, J.T. Moore, Jr.). Additional Evidence: DD Form 214; discharge orders; SGLI Election and Certificate; Record of Emergency Data; ERB; and memorandum for record, dated 9 September 2009. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on entry level separations. It states a separation will be described as entry-level status (ELS) with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. Chapter 11 of AR 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status. An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 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 "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, Entry Level Performance and Conduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JGA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed, in pertinent part, by DoDI 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. Accordingly, the applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacerized discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 11, for entry level performance and conduct. The uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service because he was in an entry level status (ELS) on the date of the initiation of his separation action. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. Further, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge is rarely ever granted. An honorable discharge may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The applicant's service record indicates no such unusual circumstances were present and did not warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant contends he had a mental disorder during his service and he was not given any type of mental evaluation to see if he had a disabililty. He asserts that his VA medical records shows that he indeed, did have a mental disorder, which he feels was the result of the "event" that occurred in the military service. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence does not provide the applicant's behavioral health or service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses. Moreover, the documents he provided using VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) shows a different name and a different social security number. The same information is used for his contentions that although VA stated his service was dishonorable, he has received two honorable discharges upon his separation from the Army-those discharges appear to be inapplicable in his case. 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 while in an entry-level-status. 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 9 January 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 AR20180011801 1