1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 November 2019 b. Date Received: 2 December 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, while looking into reenlisting, the applicant was misled on receiving an enlistment bonus, but the information turned out to be false. The applicant was also informed of not being penalized if electing not to re-enlist. The applicant contends the record is unjust because of having served 12 years in good standing with an honorable discharge. The applicant was unaware of not receiving any benefits at 60 years of age. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 31 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / Chapter 8, paragraph 8-35j, NGR 600-200 / NA / RE-3 / General b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 March 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for continuous and willful absences (nine periods of being AWOL within one year). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: None (the applicant did not respond with election of rights) (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 October 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 12 years, 6 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 April 1995 – 4 June 1995 / NA IET, 5 June 1995 – 27 July 1995 / NIF ARNG, 27 July 1995 – 13 July 1996 / NA IADT, 14 May 1996 – 10 September 1996 / UNC ARNG, 11 September 1996 – 2 January 2004 / NA MOB, 3 January 2004 – 15 May 2004 / HD ARNG, 16 May 2004 – 4 April 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM, NDSM-2, AFRM, ASR, AFRM-M DEV, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling Form for 90-day ETS counseling, dated 3 February 2007. Certified Mail dated 20 March 2008, with certified mail receipt and a signed receipt by the applicant’s signature. Certified mail receipt with an illegible date and a signed receipt by the applicant’s signature. Letter to applicant, dated 6 January 2008, subject: Unexcused Absences, informed the applicant of absence from a schedule Unit Training Assembly on 5 and 6 January 2008, and the next scheduled training assembly for the unit was on 2 and 3 February 2008. Letter to applicant, dated 4 February 2008, subject: Unexcused Absences, informed the applicant of absence from schedule Unit Training Assembly on 2 and 3 February 2008, and the next scheduled training assembly for the unit was on 15 and 16 March 2008. Letter to applicant, dated 20 March 2008, subject: Unexcused Absences, informed the applicant of absence from a schedule Unit Training Assembly on 15 March 2008, and the next scheduled training assembly for the unit was on 4 and 6 April 2008. Letter to applicant, dated 20 March 2008, subject: Notification of Separation Proceedings under NGR-200, informed the applicant that separation actions from the ARNG will be initiated for Continuous and Willful Absence (9 AWOL's within 1 year). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and DD Form 214 for 10 September 1996 separation. 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 Service member discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Service member’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. 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 (previously chapter 8) sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-8a, 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. (3) Paragraph 6-b, prescribes if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspect of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (4) Paragraph 6-34, prescribes Reentry Eligibility codes are determined at separation. They provide information concerning the Soldier’s service in the ARNG, which will be considered upon future enlistment. If a Soldier will receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the reason for discharge is non-waivable for enlistment, the RE code will be RE 4. If the reason for separation is waivable, the RE code will be RE 3. If a Soldier receives a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the RE code is RE 4. Table 6-1 defines the differences between RE codes: RE-3 Applies to: a person not fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but this disqualification is waivable. (5) Chapter 6-35 (previously chapter 8-35) prescribes for the separation/discharge from State ARNG and/or Reserve of the Army and the reasons, applicability, and codes for administrative separation or discharge from the Reserve of the Army, the State ARNG only, or both. These reasons may be used for separation from the State ARNG only. (6) Paragraph 6-35j (previously 8-35j) defers to AR 135-178, Chapter 12, for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders may recommend retention of Soldiers who have accrued 9 or more unexcused absences within a 1-year period. Submit requests with justification for retention to the State MPMO/G1. Include verification that the notification requirements of AR 135-91 and paragraph 6-32 have been met. RE 3. LC: CW 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant’s available record of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were reviewed carefully. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) information is limited on the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to discharge from the Army National Guard of South Carolina and the Reserves of the Army. The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service); however, it was not authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature. The NGB Form 22 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600- 200, Chapter 8, paragraph 8-35j (now Chapter 6, paragraph 6-35j), by reason of unsatisfactory participation, accruing nine periods of AWOL within one year, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The available record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed notices of unexcused absences and the dates of the next training assembly to the applicant’s last known address via certified mail. Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier’s refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence. The applicant contends the record is unjust because of having served 12 years in good standing with an honorable discharge. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. Furthermore, it appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for receiving a general (under honorable conditions) instead of the normal under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contends, while looking into reenlisting, the applicant was falsely misled on receiving an enlistment bonus and not being penalized if electing not to re-enlist. The applicant contends not being aware of not receiving any benefits at 60 years of age. However, the issues the applicant submitted are not matters upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because they raise no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor were they associated with the discharge at the time. 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 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 the record is unjust because of having served 12 years in good standing with an honorable discharge. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service, but determined the GD is appropriate in this case. (2) The applicant contends, while looking into reenlisting, the applicant was falsely misled on receiving an enlistment bonus and not being penalized if electing not to re-enlist. The applicant further contends not being aware of not receiving any benefits at 60 years of age. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately could not address it as the issues the applicant submitted are not matters upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because they raise no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor were they associated with the discharge at the time. 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 there were no mitigating circumstances presented for consideration, and the totality of the applicant’s record warranted the appropriate discharge. 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 AR20200002159 1