1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 June 2019 b. Date Received: 5 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates 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. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he received an other than honorable discharge due to too many unexcused absences. He would like to be eligible to rejoin the military and fix the wrongs he committed and serve the way he should. The applicant states he was a kid and had no excuse other than he got complacent with his duty to serve. He is more mature now. Case files show he was to be given a general (under honorable conditions) but he was given an other than honorable conditions discharge. In a records review conducted on 23 July 2021 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: 23 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 6 November 2014, the applicant's commander mailed him the notification via certified mail, with a suspense of 30 days to acknowledge the notice and rights. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: The applicant was declared an unsatisfactory participant with no future potential in the U.S. Army Reserve, when on or about 6 November 2014, he without any cogent or emergency reasons, received his ninth unexcused absence. The applicant's decision to miss nine (9) unit training assemblies constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (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: 18 May 2016 / Other than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 August 2013 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resource / 2 years, 10 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 23 May 2014 - 6 January 2014 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report dated 15 January 2015, reflects the applicant was notified of his proposed separation via certified mail on 6 November 2014. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 30 July 2014, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 26 July 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) 27 July 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 30 July 2014, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 31 July 2014. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 20 October 2014, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 18 October 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) 19 October 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 20 October 2014, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 21 October 2014. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 4 November 2014, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 1 November 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) 2 November 2014 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 4 November 2014, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 7 November 2014. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various missed Battle Assembly/Annual Training. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: As described in previous paragraph 4h. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Orders 16-145-00011; Partial Separation Packet. 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 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. (5) 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 of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he desires to rejoin the military and fix the wrong he committed. 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 the case file shows his discharge should be characterized as general (under honorable conditions), but he received an other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2-2c, states, the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of regulation. The applicant contends he was a kid and has no excuse other than he was complacent with his duty to serve. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. 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 all available medical records and found no BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents that, when applying liberal consideration, convinced the Board of a possible mitigating BH condition. (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 contentions: (1) The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he would like to be eligible to rejoin the military. The applicant contends the case file shows his discharge should be characterized as general (under honorable conditions) but he received other than honorable conditions discharge. 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. (2) The applicant contends he was a kid and has no excuse other than he was complacent with his duty to serve. The board appreciates the applicant's candor and personal accountability of his actions, but that in and of itself does not warrant an upgrade. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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 due to lack of independent corroborating evidence warranting upgrade. (2) The board voted not to change the reason for discharge for the same reason. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: No Change b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. 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 AR20190012404 1