1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 November 2019 b. Date Received: 25 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was singled out by the squad leader who did not like the applicant and was looking to get the applicant out of the Army. The applicant believes that the applicant never should have been discharged. The applicant states having been a hard-working Soldier who was ready to deploy with fellow Soldiers to Iraq and instead was discharged for going to formation a little bit hungover. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 June 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 May 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for disobeying direct orders from noncommissioned officers on multiple occasions, failing to report to formations on multiple occasions, failing to wear the correct physical training uniform to formation, repeated loss of the applicant’s room key, and for being found drunk on duty as a Generator Mechanic. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 May 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 June 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 April 2004 / 4 years, 5 months b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 52D10, Power-Gen-Equip Rep / 2 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 16 September 2005 for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 1 August 2005, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on or about 1 August 2005, 2 August 2005, and 23 August 2005, and being disrespectful in language and deportment toward a noncommissioned on 23 August 2005. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $323.00 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days, and an oral admonition. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 March 2006, indicates the punishment of reduction to E2 and forfeiture of $323.00 pay imposed on 16 September 2005 was vacated because of the applicant having received a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer to move the applicant things from building 3218 to building 3221, an order which was the applicant duty to obey. FG Article 15 dated 10 May 2006, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the applicant appointed place of duty on 20 January 2006, 11 January 2006, and 23 March 2006, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 21 February 2006, and being found drunk on duty as a Generator Mechanic on 23 March 2006. The punishment consisted of reduction to E- 1, forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 29 March 2006, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative and judicial proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriated by his command. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293. 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for disobeying direct orders from noncommissioned officers on multiple occasions, failing to report to formations on multiple occasions, failing to wear the correct physical training uniform to formation, repeated loss of applicant’s room key, and for being found drunk on duty as a Generator Mechanic. The applicant seeks relief contending being singled out by the squad leader who did not like the applicant and was looking to get the applicant out of the Army. The applicant believes there never should have been a discharge. The applicant was a hard-working Soldier who was ready to deploy with fellow Soldiers to Iraq and instead was discharged for going to formation a little bit hungover. The applicant’s issues were noted; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. In fact, the applicant’s two Article 15’s and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. 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 excused or mitigated a 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 harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment from an applicant’s unit or chain of command, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant’s basis of separation of disobeying direct orders from NCOs on multiple occasions, multiple FTRs, failing to wear the correct physical training uniform to formation, repeated loss of room key, and for being found drunk on duty as a Generator Mechanic is not an acceptable response to dealing with applicant’s stated mistreatment, and is not outweighed by the applicant’s statement. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined 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 the above listed basis of separation, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (3) The applicant claims the offenses leading to the discharge were minor. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, the assertion that the misconduct was minor does not excuse the misconduct. 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 based on the severity of the numerous offenses, the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, after applying liberal consideration, there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. The discharge for disobeying direct orders from NCOs on multiple occasions, multiple FTRs, failing to wear the correct physical training uniform to formation, repeated loss of room key, and for being found drunk on duty as a Generator Mechanic 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 AR20200001721 1