1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 23 January 2020 b. Date Received: 31 January 2020 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 discharge was based on one misconduct of drinking of age, where there was no arrest or charges filed, and an underage drinking on another incident. While the applicant takes full ownership of the failures and an understanding of not deserving to remain at the United States Military Academy, the applicant believes in serving as a successful enlisted Soldier, which is a goal after graduating from Kent State University. 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 11 January 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: Conduct / AR 150-1 / 280-0003- 7 October 2019 / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to AR 210-15, procedures for processing major misconduct offenses of Cadets assigned to the United States Military Academy (USMA) and the applicant being referred to a hearing before an investigating officer is NIF. According to the Separation Authority Action, the investigating officer found the applicant committed the following misconduct offenses: The applicant was deficient in conduct for receiving two Article 10 boards for alcohol policy violations. (3) Investigation Officer Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Superintendent USMA Recommendation: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 October 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Oath of Allegiance: 3 July 2017 / NIF b. Age at Allegiance / Education: 21 / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: NIF / None / 2 years, 3 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214 (Member-1); self-authored statement; applicant-authored letter to Superintendent of USMA; and eight third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant referred to attending and would be graduating upon finishing the last semester at Kent State University. 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 150-1 provides policy and procedures for the command and control of the United States Military Academy (USMA), the United States Military Academy Preparatory School (USMAPS), and the West Point Military Reservation (WPMR). (1) Chapter 6, governs misconduct, honor, disciplinary and other grounds for separation and states cadets at the United States Military Academy are members of the Regular Army and subject to military law and the UCMJ. (2) Chapter 6-4 provides policy on sanctions that may be awarded cadets. Following a hearing for conduct deficiency, misconduct, or honor resulting in a finding of a violation of para- graphs 6-6 through 6-13, 6-15, and 6-16, respectively, the Superintendent, USMA may impose the following sanctions in such amounts or in such combinations as the Superintendent, USMA deems appropriate: Admonition; Reprimand; Restriction to limits; Deprivation of privileges; Reduction in or withdrawal of cadet officer or noncommissioned officer rank; Demerits; Punishment tours; Fatigue tours; Loss of leave; Forfeiture of pay; Delayed graduation (by less than a full year); Turn-back to the next lower class; Suspension from USMA; Separation from USMA in accordance with table 8-2 (3) Chapter 6-9 provides for misconduct involving alcoholic beverages. Except as specifically authorized in regulations prescribed by the Commandant of Cadets, a cadet who, while on WPMR, drinks or possesses alcoholic beverages, or is found under the influence of alcoholic beverages, may be awarded sanctions under paragraph 6-4. Elsewhere, a cadet who drinks or possesses alcoholic beverages, and who, as a result, commits (an) act(s), in such a manner and under such circumstances as to bring discredit on the cadet or the Corps of Cadets, may be awarded sanctions under paragraph 6-4. (4) Chapter 6-11 provides for misconduct involving conduct unbecoming a cadet of the Regular Army. Cadets are required to act as leaders of character. They are not only to abstain from all immoral conduct, but they are also enjoined to conduct themselves upon every occasion with propriety and decorum. Cadets who commit acts un-becoming an officer may be awarded sanctions under paragraph 6-4. (5) Chapter 6-16 provides for misconduct involving other misconduct offenses. A cadet who commits an offense punishable under the UCMJ by confinement for a term of 6 months or more may be awarded sanctions under paragraph 6-4. (6) Chapter 6-17 provides for misconduct involving procedures for processing misconduct offenses. Cadets subject to separation or other adverse action under the provisions of this section of this regulation may, at the discretion of the Superintendent, USMA, be tried by court-martial if the conduct constitutes a violation of the UCMJ, be referred to a hearing before an investigating officer under the provisions of this paragraph or be considered under procedures set forth in paragraph 6-4c. Should the Superintendent, USMA elect to proceed under the provisions of this paragraph, cadets concerned will be directed to appear as respondents before an investigating officer appointed by the Superintendent, USMA. The investigating officer will conduct an investigation of the matter in accordance with procedures approved by the Superintendent, USMA. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer will submit the record of the proceedings, including his or her findings and recommendations, to the Superintendent, USMA for action pursuant to paragraph 8-3. e. Army Regulation 210-26 provides policy and procedures for the general governance and operation of the United States Military Academy (USMA). (1) Chapter 6, governs misconduct, honor, disciplinary and other grounds for separation and states cadets at the United States Military Academy are members of the Regular Army and subject to military law and the UCMJ. (2) Paragraph 6-15, Procedures for processing major misconduct offenses, states cadets subject to separation or other adverse action under the provisions of this section of this regulation may, at the discretion of the Superintendent, be tried by court-martial if the conduct constitutes a violation of the UCMJ, be referred to a hearing before an investigating officer under the provisions of this paragraph, or be considered under procedures set forth in paragraph 6-4c of this regulation. Should the Superintendent elect to proceed under the provisions of this paragraph, cadets concerned will be directed to appear as respondents before an investigating officer appointed by the Superintendent. The investigating officer will conduct an investigation of the matter in accordance with procedures approved by the Superintendent. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer will submit the record of the proceedings, including his or her findings and recommendations, to the Superintendent for action pursuant to paragraph 7-3 of this regulation. (3) Paragraph 7-7 states characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions) and under other than honorable conditions. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the separation from the USMA and the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 150-1, by reason of Conduct, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service as an enlisted Soldier. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant’s DD form 214 does not reflect the reentry code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility 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. The applicant contends being in the process of completing the last semester to graduate from a university. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s character and performance. 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 Contentions: (1) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service as an enlisted Soldier. The Board considered this contention along with all other evidence and determined applicant’s records did not reflect any evidence which excuse or mitigate the offenses of alcohol policy violations. Therefore, the Board voted not to change the applicant’s discharge. (2) The applicant contends being in the process of completing the last semester to graduate from a university. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s records did not reflect any evidence which outweighed the offenses of alcohol policy violations. (3) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s character and performance. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the applicant’s military records and all other evidence and determined that the applicant’s records did not reflect any evidence of an impropriety or inequity in 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. 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 records did not reflect any evidence which excuse or mitigate the offenses of alcohol policy violations. 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 AR20200003033 1