1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 September 2019 b. Date Received: 14 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the commanding officer lied and forced the applicant to confess to theft. The applicant also contends there was no opportunity to consult with a JAG representative and there was evidence to conclude to the applicant was responsible for the theft. The allegation was an isolated incident and there was honorable service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 August 2022, 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 7 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant could not or would not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training due to lack of attitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline. The applicant would not adhere to the most minute rules and regulation. The applicant conspired to steal government property. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 May 2016 / The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 May 2016 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 January 2016 / 4 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 4 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A Counseling Statement, dated 30 April 2015, reflects the applicant was recommended for a Field Article 15 for violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) – Possession of contraband and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) – Stealing a PEQ 15 from the Arms Room. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 5 January 2021. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Personal statement, Individual Training Record, Letter of Support-2, 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 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. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge 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. (5) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. 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. 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’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulation for a discharge under this chapter is “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and the separation code to “JGA.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes. The regulation stipulated no deviations authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the commanding officer lied and forced the applicant to confess to theft and there was no opportunity to consult with a JAG representative. The applicant further contends there was evidence to conclude the applicant was responsible for the theft. The AMHRR shows the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel. The applicant further contends the allegation 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 there was honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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, a voting member, 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 mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience 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 the commanding officer lied and forced the applicant to confess to theft. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses and found no evidence of the Command acting arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant also contends there was no opportunity to consult with a JAG representative and there was evidence to conclude to the applicant was responsible for the theft. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses and found no evidence of the Command acting arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant further contends the allegation was an isolated incident and there was honorable service. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of an isolated incident, however the Board determined that there is not sufficient evidence, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately the applicant was discharge while in Entry Level Status for which an Uncharacterized discharge is directed by AR 635-200. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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: The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant had no mitigating BH diagnoses to mitigate a discharge. AR 635-200 Paragraph 9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except when— DCS, G – 1, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. 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. (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (2) 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 AR20190014606 1