1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 September 2019 b. Date Received: 24 September 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant discharge should be upgraded because of a communication failure on applicant's part and the unit's part. The applicant states being at fault but not to the point of receiving an under than honorable conditions discharge and a reduction in rank to E-1. The applicant states this is an isolated event in 20 years of honorable service which did not result in a court-martial. The applicant further states being about 10 months out from ARNG ETS, and was trying to transfer to the IRR for civilian employment/family reasons, which applicant had done before. The applicant thought the unit did the paperwork to allow this and never heard from them again until the discharge paperwork. The applicant realizes they should have followed up but thinks their leaders should have contacted the applicant as they have many times before for schools or training. The applicant states receiving no calls inquiring about applicant's status and if applicant had known, the situation would have been resolved. The applicant was under the assumption the IRR transfer went through; however, applicant takes responsibility for their part but does not believe applicant deserves the discharge received. The applicant states having seen far less given for worse things throughout applicant's service. The applicant teaches their four children to respect the military/public service positions and would hate for them to see applicant's OTH characterization. The applicant feels that's all they will remember of applicant. The applicant states having a good career with Dominion Energy going on 15 years now and hopes the board can take into account applicant's prior service before this event. In a records review conducted on 01 June 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnoses). 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. Therefore, the Board voted to recommend relief with issuance of a new NGB Form 22a, with an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board's recommendation was forwarded to the Chief, National Guard Bureau, Kentucky Military Department, to the Adjutant General, State of Kentucky, under the provisions of 10 USC § 1553, for final approval. 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 / NGR 600- 200, Paragraph 6-35j / NA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 20 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant's attendance records from 8-10 January 2016, 26-28 February 2016 and 18-20 March 2016 show applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) resulting in 15 unsatisfactory MUTA's and applicant did not contact the unit nor return any correspondence therefore not showing any motivation to continue a military career. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 July 2016 (see note in Summary of Facts) (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (see note in Summary of Facts) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2016 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 November 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 42 / 4 Years of College / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 37F19, Psychological Operations Specialist / 25 years, 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 16 March 1989 - 31 May 1989 / HD IADT, 01 June 1989 - 4 August 1989 / HD ARNG, 5 August 1989 - 7 June 1990 / HD IADT, 18 June 1990 - 26 July 1990 / HD ARNG, 27 July 1990 - 15 March 1995 /HD (Break in Service) ARNG, 31 October 2005 - 27 July 2011 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Kosovo, SWA / Iraq (1 February 2004 - 2 October 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: SSDR, JSCM, AAM, NATOMDL, NAM, NUC, GCM, ARCOM, NDSM-2, AFEM, GWOTEM, KOSOVO-CM, NPDR, ASR, OSR, USN-USMCOSR, AFRM, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 27 November 2014 - 26 November 2015 / Success h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Instruction, Unexcused Absence, dated 12 January 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following period(s): 8 January 2016, 9 January 2016 and 10 January 2016. Unless the absences indicated were excused, the applicant would have accrued 4 unexcused absences within one-year period. Letter of Instruction, Unexcused Absence, dated 28 February 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following period(s): 26 February 2016, 27 February 2016 and 28 February 2016. Unless the absences indicated were excused, the applicant would have accrued 8 unexcused absences within one-year period. Letter of Instruction, Unexcused Absence, dated 20 March 2016, reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following period(s): 18 March 2016, 19 March 2016 and 20 March 2016. Unless the absences indicated were excused, the applicant would have accrued 12 unexcused absences within one-year period. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214-4; NGB Form 22-2; copies of military awards; three NCO Evaluation Reports. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been employed with Dominion Energy for 15 years. 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 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrue 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. e. 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 12 (previously Chapter 13), in affect at the time, 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 12-3, Characterization of service normally will be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines in chapter 2, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. f. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and, Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-25, prescribes the discharge of Soldiers on active duty, (Title 10, USC) in AGR, IET, ADT, and ADOS status, as well as those ordered to active duty for contingency operations or under mobilization conditions, is governed by AR 635-200. All Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) training, including AT is conducted in Title 10 ADT status. Refer to AR 135-178 when considering enlisted Soldiers not on active duty and those on full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) under Title 32 USC for discharge from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army. (3) Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders may recommend retention of Soldiers who have accrued 9 or more unexcused absences within a one-year period. Submit requests with justification for retention to the AG (MPMO/G1). Include verification that the notification requirements of AR 135-91 and paragraph 6-32 have been met. Soldiers must be notified by registered or certified mail the intent and projected discharge date. Retention approval authority can be delegated to the LTC command level. RE 3. 8. SUMMARY 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. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35j, NGR 600-200, with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Participation." Governing regulations stipulate that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends communication failure on applicant's part and the unit's part in which the applicant thought the unit completed paperwork to allow transfer and never heard from them again until the discharge paperwork. The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant realizes they should have followed up but thinks applicant's leaders should have contacted applicant as they have many times before for training; however, applicant received no phone calls. The applicant was under the assumption the IRR transfer went through; however, applicant takes responsibility for applicant's part but does not believe they deserves the discharge received. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends having a good career with Dominion Energy going on 15 years now and hopes the board can take into account applicant's prior service before this event. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. It is noted that the applicant was notified of the separation proceedings by certified mail on 21 July 2016 and advised that the command was recommending an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service which entitled the applicant to an administrative separation board. The applicant did not respond to the notification. 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? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third-party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD that occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical condition does mitigate the basis of separation. Per liberal consideration, and nexus between trauma and avoidance, the failure to attend 15 MUTA's (AWOL) is mitigated by the applicant's service-connected PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the failure to attend 15 MUTA's (AWOL). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends communication failure on applicant's part and the unit's part in which applicant thought the unit did the paperwork to allow applicant's transfer and applicant never heard from them again until the discharge paperwork. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD fully outweighing the applicant's the failure to attend 15 MUTA's (AWOL) basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention; however, the applicant's PTSD outweighs the applicant's failure to attend over 15 MUTA's. Therefore, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization to Honorable. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. In this case, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization to Honorable due to PTSD outweighing the discharge. (4) The applicant contends having a good career with Dominion Energy going on 15 years now and hopes the board can take into account applicant's prior service before this event. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the discharge and voted to upgrade the characterization to Honorable. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (PTSD diagnosis). 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. Therefore, the Board voted to recommend relief with issuance of a new NGB Form 22a, with an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board's recommendation was forwarded to the Chief, National Guard Bureau, Kentucky Military Department, to the Adjutant General, State of Kentucky, under the provisions of 10 USC § 1553, for final approval. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant had PTSD which mitigated the applicant's failure to attend 15 MUTA's (AWOL) basis for separation. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. This recommendation was forwarded to the NGB for approval. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code 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 NGB Form 22a: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-8a: 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 AR20190014435 1