1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2019 b. Date Received: 22 July 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he never signed any documents for separation. He never had to go to court for this and no one told him he had to. He states he never received separation documents or a DD Form 214 with an RE code. He had to go through a series of things to get access to them. He contends he is trying to enlist in the Navy as his uncle is a Chief Petty Officer. He states, he has nothing bad on his record, not even an Article 15. He missed drill because his car's engine was blown and his unit was an hour and 30 minutes away and his main unit was in another state. He was between jobs while in good standing with the Army Reserves. He states his grandmother, who was the only mother he had, passed away in January of that year. He contends no one gave him proper direction and this caused him to doubt himself and his situation. Ultimately, he did not defer from his goal of finding answers which led him to the right representative who gave him the right direction. In a records review conducted on 15 December 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178, Chapter 13 / NA / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 March 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 18 October 2012, 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: The applicant accrued, in a one year period, nine or more unexcused absences and failed to provide a valid reason for his absences. Pursuant to Army Regulation 135-91, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-14b, one (1) absence is any four (4) hour period not attended during a Battle Assembly. The applicant's absences were 3 - 5 August 2012, 15 - 16 September 2012 and 13 - 14 October 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable (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: 5 March 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 November 2007 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 28 May 2008 - 7 August 2008 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 6 August 2012, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 4 August 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) 5 August 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notice of unexcused absence, Letter of Instructions, dated 6 August 2012, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 6 August 2012. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 18 September 2012, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 15 September 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) 16 September 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notice of unexcused absence, Letter of Instructions, dated 19 September 2012, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 19 September 2012. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 16 October 2012, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 13 October 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) 14 October 2012 (UTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notice of unexcused absence, Letter of Instructions, dated 16 October 2012, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 16 October 2012. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notice of Separation Proceedings, dated 18 October 2012, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 18 October 2012. DA Form 268, Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) was initiated for adverse action on 18 October 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; case separation packet; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 135-178 prescribes 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 of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. (3) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 3-23 (Section IV), states, if separation proceedings under this chapter have been initiated against a Soldier confined by civil authorities, the case may be processed in the absence of the respondent. (5) Chapter 13, provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because: The Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91, chapter 4; Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence. (6) Paragraph 13-3, prescribes the service of Soldiers separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as determined under chapter 2, section III, unless an uncharacterized description of service is warranted under paragraph 2-11. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicants AMHRR record contains a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 13-073- 00052, dated 14 March 2013. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends never being informed about the imminent discharge or signed any documents. The record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on 18 October 2012 and mailed the discharge packet to the last known address via certified mail. The evidence of the record shows the applicant had failed to submit a reply. In accordance with AR 135-178, paragraph 3-12, this failure to submit a reply within 30 days of receipt of the notice constitutes a waiver of the right to respond. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's discharge orders do not reflect the reentry code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of if appropriate. The applicant requests a change to the characterization of service to rejoin the Army. At the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 4, stipulates an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waiverable disqualification; thus, the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends good service. The applicant contends he was between jobs, had car troubles and his grandmother passed away, which affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends never being informed about the imminent discharge. The record shows the unit attempted to contact the applicant at the last known address via certified mail and received no response. Failure to submit a reply within 30 days of receipt constitutes a waiver of the right to respond, counsel, and administrative separation board. (2) The applicant contends he desires to rejoin the Military Service. With no mitigating circumstances convincing the Board of a required upgrade or basis for clemency, the applicant's current discharge is service-limiting. There is evidence of the unit attempting to contact the applicant with no response, and no evidence that the applicant attempted to contact or make up missed drills. (3) The applicant contends good service. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's 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 missing numerous drills and ignoring unit attempts at contact, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends he had car troubles, was in between jobs and his grandmother had passed away which affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There are many legitimate avenues available to service members requiring assistance, and there is no evidence that the applicant attempted to take advantage of these programs. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because there were no mitigating conditions for the applicant's numerous unexcused absences from drill. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190010876 2