1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 September 2019 b. Date Received: 30 September 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that wrongful admin separation procedures were used at the time of discharge because MEB proceedings were prepared after the General Court- Martial Convening Authority issued separation orders and general discharge. In a records review conducted on 1 June 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178 / Chapter 13 / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 October 2018 c. Separation Facts: (Separation Documents Submitted by the Applicant) (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 July 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for being an Annual Training NO SHOW. The action was suspended for 30 days giving the applicant the opportunity to exercise applicant’s rights. Applicant was informed to complete the attached endorsement acknowledging receipt of the action and indicating applicant’s election of rights. A copy of the memorandum with the completed endorsement was to be delivered to the address shown on the endorsement within 30 days from the date of applicant’s receipt of the memorandum of notification. The applicant was told that any statements or documents applicant desired to submit on applicant’s behalf were to reach the commander within 30 calendar days after applicant received the memorandum, unless applicant requested and received an extension for good cause shown. Unless an extension was granted, failure to deliver the completed endorsement within 30 calendar days of the date of applicant’s receipt of this memorandum would constitute a waiver of applicant’s rights. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 August 2016 / (Several extensions resulting in an ETS date of 11 September 2021) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14T10, Patriot Operator / Maintainer / 8 years, 7 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 4 March 2010 to 20 June 2010 / NA RA, 21 June 2010 to 11 April 2017 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for the applicant, dated 1 April 2019, from the Officer of Soldiers Counsel, US Army Medical Command, Camp Atterbury, Edinburgh, Indiana reference “Veteran ABCMR Application-Wrongful Admin Separation DES. Counseling statement reference the applicant’s none attendance at Annual Training on 23-25 July 2018 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, dated 23 April 2018, signed by a Licensed Clinical Health Psychologist, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderated and with Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. This is consistent with the finding of a 1 February 2017 Compensation and Pension exam completed by D.B., PhD, ABBP, in which the applicant was found to meet DSM V criteria for Major Depressive Episode. Recurrent Moderate in partial remission (ICD F33.1); Anxiety Disorder Unspecified (ICD-F41.9). This examination noted mild impairments in some areas of socio-occupational functioning, including his ability to respond appropriately to changes and stress in his work environment and to interact appropriately with others. These impairments were not considered permanent in that evaluation. Disability Evaluation System (DES) Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement, dated 14 September 2018, which made reference to the applicant being unsuccessful in conducting the required training and did not attend Battle Assemblies or contribute to the unit’s mission due to a depression/anxiety disorder. The applicant could not effectively contribute to the unit’s mission readiness in his state. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 9 November 2018, which indicates the applicant met AR 40-501 Retention Standard for Bilateral Knee Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome & Degenerative Arthritis (VA Dx), claimed as right knee Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome, claimed as Left Knee Condition. The applicant did not meet for Major Depressive disorder, Moderate, with Anxious Distress (VA Dx), referred as Major Depressive Disorder, Claimed as Insomnia. Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Chapter 3-32b, c. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; medical opinion; medical evaluation board tracking; recommendation for separation action; commander statement; and MEB proceedings. 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 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) 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. (4) Chapter 12, 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 12-3, 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. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the United States Army Reserve. However, documents submitted by the applicant with his application indicate separation was initiated against the applicant for being an Annual Training NO SHOW. The applicant seeks relief contending that wrongful admin separation procedures were used at the time of discharge because MEB proceedings were prepared after the General Court-Martial Convening Authority issued separation orders and general discharge. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence submitted by the applicant indicates in a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, dated 23 April 2018, signed by a Licensed Clinical Health Psychologist, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderated and with Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. On 25 July 2018, separation action was initiated against the applicant for being an Annual Training NO SHOW. Disability Evaluation System (DES) Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement, dated 14 September 2018, indicates the applicant was unsuccessful in conducting the required training and did not attend Battle Assemblies or contribute to the unit’s mission due to a depression/anxiety disorder. The applicant could not effectively contribute to the unit’s mission readiness in his state. On 2 October 2018, Orders 18-275-00009, indicated the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) effective 9 October 2018. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 9 November 2018, indicates the applicant met AR 40-501 Retention Standard for Bilateral Knee Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome & Degenerative Arthritis (VA Dx), claimed as right knee Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome, claimed as Left Knee Condition. The applicant did not meet for Major Depressive disorder, Moderate, with Anxious Distress (VA Dx), referred as Major Depressive Disorder, Claimed as Insomnia. Medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, Chapter 3-32b, c. Evidence indicates that at the time the DA Form 3947 Medical Evaluation Board Proceeding was completed the applicant had been discharged from the United States Army Reserves. 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 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Panic Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depressive and Anxiety Disorder NOS, 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 held in-service diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s medical records clearly reflect intact cognitive skills Specifically, the applicant reported consistent employment at a high stress job and desire to be discharged from the Reserves due to parenting, commute, and not feeling there was a purpose fueling a lack of motivation. Moreover, the applicant expressed a conscious decision to not be discharged early if applicant would not receive an Honorable status later noting applicant was pursuing a medical separation. Lastly, the applicant was noted to be functioning satisfactorily with no concerns for impairment related to behavioral health. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failure to report for training (unsatisfactory participation) b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending that wrongful admin separation procedures were used at the time of discharge because MEB proceedings were prepared after the General Court-Martial Convening Authority issued separation orders and general discharge. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that 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: (1) 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’s Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of failure to report for training (unsatisfactory participation). 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, as 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 AR20200001706 1