1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 11 December 2019 b. Date Received: 16 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 a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a change to the RE code to 1 would allow the applicant to reenlist in the military. The applicant enlisted at a younger age with a more childish mind. The applicant was not prepared at the time but has since grown. The applicant would like to be a service to the country and serve with brothers and battle buddies. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 November 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: 22 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 August 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was counseled on 11 separate occasions for failing to be at the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (between 12 April 2011 – 11 July 2011. On 12 April 2011, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failing to obey an order of SFC O. J. R. and for communicating a threat towards SFC O. J. R. On 13 April 2011, the applicant was counseled for being derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to participate in the assigned end of the day class clean up duties. On 28 April 2011, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failing to obey an order of SFC J. B. and being disrespectful in language towards SFC J. B. On 7 May 2011, the applicant was absent from the unit and remained absent until 8 May 2011. On 12 May 2011, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failing to obey SFC J. B, failing to obey a lawful written order, and making a false official statement to SFC J. B. On 18 July 2011, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for having a significant number of counseling sessions for negative actions and behavior, indicating a lack of motivation and discipline; for having two separate incidents of becoming violent or aggressive towards company cadre members; and for being unable or unwilling to remain disciplined and making two statements of intent to harm noncommissioned officers. On 18 July 2011, an assessment conducted revealed the applicant was given many chances to overcome the shortcomings with no improvement, and the applicant was in counseling by Dr. B. from Behavioral Health opining the applicant had an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and the applicant indicating a strong desire to be released from the military service. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 2 August 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 June 2010 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate /115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 1 year, 1 month, 23 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: Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. FG Article 15, dated 30 June, for four separate incidents of failing to be at the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 12 April 2011 x 2, 13 April 2011, and 11 June 2011; being AWOL on 7 May 2011, until 8 May 2011; being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 27 April 2011; disobey an NCO on three separate occasions on 28 April 2011, 12 May 2011, and 11 April 2011; being derelict in the performance of duties on 12 April 2011; disobeying a lawful order issue by COL D. J. R. on 12 May 2011; making a false official statement on 12 May 2011; and communicating a threat towards an NCO on 11 April 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 20 June 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. Report of Medical History, dated 13 July 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was in counseling for adjustment disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and two third-party statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant’s third-party statement indicates the applicant being employed in a restaurant. 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 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 12b, 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 a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. Separation Program Designator (SPD)/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides that RE code "3" is the appropriate RE code for Soldiers separated with the separation code "JKA." The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, is “JKA.” The applicant contends, at the time of enlistment at a younger age with a more childish mind, the applicant was not prepared but has since grown. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Chronic Adjustment Disorder (CAD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s CAD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, CAD, which mitigates some of the misconduct. As CAD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between CAD and the applicant’s multiple FTRs as well as the period of AWOL. CAD does not mitigate disobeying orders, communicating a threat, being derelict in performance of duties, being disrespectful or making a false official statement as these offenses are not part of the natural history or sequelae of CAD. Regarding the request for an RE code change, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant’s RE code remain the same given the fact the applicant is 70% service connected for a mental health condition, CAD. This condition developed as a result of stressors the applicant faced while in the military. Return to active duty will more likely than not result in worsening of the applicant’s CAD symptoms and will likely harm the applicant. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that while the applicant’s CAD mitigates the applicant’s misconduct of FTR and AWOL, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s CAD outweighed the remaining unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – disobeying orders, communicating a threat, being derelict in performance of duties, being disrespectful, and making a false official statement – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and due to the applicant’s BH condition being service limiting, voted to maintain the applicant’s RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (2) The applicant contends, at the time of enlistment at a younger age with a more childish mind, the applicant was not prepared but has since grown. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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 this contention does not outweigh the remaining unmitigated basis for the applicant’s separation. 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 and though the applicant’s CAD mitigated the applicant’s FTRs and AWOL misconduct, the applicant’s BH condition did not excuse the remaining unmitigated basis for separation – disobeying orders, communicating a threat, being derelict in performance of duties, being disrespectful, and making a false official statement. 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 and the applicant’s BH condition though partially mitigating is service limiting. 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 AR20200002905 1