1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 December 2019 b. Date Received: 20 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 honorable. The applicant requests a separation code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a correct separation code will accurately reflect the honorable character of service. The applicant has been denied jobs with DoD and DoS agencies with the current code and it is causing a stop to the career progression. The applicant’s direct commission packet was halted, although it has been approved at all levels of the current command. Fort Rucker where the code was received is the same post/command found to have been fostering a hostile command climate. The applicant was targeted by the command while serving with the command. The applicant did not complete the OH58D course because of going through a divorce at the time of the flight check rides. Because the applicant was not allowed time to cope with the divorce, it affected the ability to focus in the cockpit during the testing. The divorce was finalized months later after coming off the flight line. The applicant was not aware of the specificity of the separation code until years after returning to military service. The code has also affected the wellbeing of the family as the applicant plans to continue the service in the California Army National Guard for years to come. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 February 2023, 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: Substandard Performance / AR 600-8- 24, Chapter 4-2A / JHK / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 26 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 November 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a(2) and (11) for substandard performance of duty based on: Failing to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency when compared with other officers of the same grade and competitive category; and failing of a course at a service school for academic reasons by a non-probationary regular Army officer. Since the applicant’s appointment to WO1 on 4 June 2005, the applicant failed to graduate from the flight school. On 17 September 2010, the applicant was eliminated from the OH-58D FSXXI course. The applicant failed two evaluations (1 End of State and 1 X PROG). The applicant consistently demonstrated an inability to retain oral knowledge and multitask in the cockpit. The nature of deficiencies related to every aspect of safe helicopter flight including a lack of control touch, reaction time, and physical coordination. The magnitude of the applicant’s deficiency has put both the instructor pilots and the aircraft at risk. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI) Date: 3 February 2011 (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 10 February 2011 / Honorable (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 4 May 2011, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 May 2011 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 14 June 2005 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 26 / some college c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: WO2 / 003A0 Student / 10 years, 8 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 25 September 2000 – 18 October 2000 / NA IADT, 19 October 2000 – 15 February 2001 / HD USAR, 16 February 2001 – 18 October 2003 / NA ADT, 19 October 2003 – 11 April 2004 / HD USAR, 12 April 2004 – 11 April 2005 / NIF RA, 12 April 2005 – 13 June 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCOM, AAM-2, ARCAM, NDSM, KDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, ARCOT-4, AFRMMD, MOVSM, CAB, ICM-CS The applicant’s AMHRR (specifically, ORB) reflects award of the ICM-CS, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: USAACE Form 396-1, Record of Student Flight Deficiency Action, dated 19 August 2010, reflects the applicant was recommended for an additional 1.5 hours of reevaluation with the remark the applicant was currently undergoing divorce proceedings from the spouse with two children. However, the battalion commander approved the recommendation for elimination on 27 September 2010. USAACE Form 396-1, Record of Student Flight Deficiency Action, dated 24 September 2010, reflects a recommendation for the applicant’s elimination from training due to flight deficiency, which was approved by the battalion commander on 27 September 2010. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; BOI Summary of Proceedings; ADHOC Findings and Recommendations; emails; 21 third-party letters; and Final Divorce Decree. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is serving as an enlisted Soldier in the California Army National Guard. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23 provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380–67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Chapter 4 outlines the rules and steps for eliminating officers for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security. (4) Paragraph 4-2a, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for substandard performance of duty for: downward trend in over performance of duty; failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries; failure exercise necessary leadership or command; and other reasons. (5) 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 “JHK” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a, substandard performance. 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 separation 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 contends the separation code “JHK,” which corresponds with the narrative reason for the discharge, needs changed. 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. The 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 4, paragraph 4-2a, is “JHK.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24 with a honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Substandard Performance,” and the separation code is “JHK.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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- 5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends being denied employment with DoD and DoS agencies with the current code and it is causing a stop to the career progression. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends, Fort Rucker where the code was received is the same post/command found to have been fostering a hostile command climate, and the applicant was targeted by the command while serving with the command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported being targeted by the command or the harassment. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends family issues, such as undergoing a divorce proceeding, affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance for the issues which affected the performance and led to the separation action under review. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant character and performance. The applicant’s 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: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety; Acute Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnosis of Adjustment and Acute Stress Disorders were made in service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant received the diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder Adjustment DO with anxiety while on active duty, these conditions resolved prior to the failure to successfully graduate from the OH-58D FSXXI course in Sep 2010. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment and Acute Stress Disorders outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failure to successfully graduate – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the separation code “JHK,” which corresponds with the narrative reason for the discharge, needs changed. The Board considered the following contentions along with the totality of the service record. The Board voted not to change the separation code because the applicant failed to meet performance standards. Therefore, the separation code and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being denied employment with DoD and DoS agencies with the current code and it is causing a stop to the career progression. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (3) The applicant contends, Fort Rucker where the code was received is the same post/command found to have been fostering a hostile command climate, and the applicant was targeted by the command while serving with the command. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the service record, but ultimately denied the claim because there is insufficient evidence to provide merit to the claim and overcome the record which demonstrates the applicant’s inability to progress as required. (4) The applicant contends family issues, such as undergoing a divorce proceeding, affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the service record. However, The Board determined the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable and the applicant’s divorce circumstances do not outweigh the propriety of the discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. The Board determined the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant found no BH diagnosis which excuse or mitigate failure to meet performance standards and there were no other compelling arguments for consideration to support the applicant’s contention that the totality of the applicant’s service record outweighed the current discharge details. 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 because the applicant failed to meet performance standards, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) As there is no RE-code due to being in a WO training status, no upgrade note is required for this item. 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 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 AR20200002966 1