1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 13 February 2020 b. Date Received: 20 February 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, enlisting in the Army with an eight-year commitment. The applicant completed basic training (BT) and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood in June 2006, assigned to the 304th Military Police Company, Bluefield, West Virginia. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions in November 2007. The applicant thoroughly enjoyed the BT and AIT experiences. During those training months, the applicant was recognized several times by both fellow Soldiers and the leadership team. The applicant was placed in leadership positions during AIT and excelled at all of the training opportunities. The applicant’s assignment with the 304th Military Police Company was a totally different and negative experience. The applicant went from a structured and disciplined military command to one with no structure, no communication to Soldiers, and no respect shown to the applicant or to others. Not once did anyone in the leadership chain introduce themselves to the applicant, the only leader who actually acknowledged the applicant and addressed the applicant by name was the supply sergeant. Despite these obstacles, the applicant was promoted to Private First Class on three occasions only to be reduced in rank to Private E-2. During the scheduled unit training sessions, the training was very minimal and not realistic. On a training deployment to Fort Irwin, the lack of structure and lack of communication were readily apparent and even led to three Soldiers, including the applicant, being left alone with no directions on how to regroup with the rest of the company. Soldiers could have suffered severe medical problems if it had not been for the range safety officer who discovered the Soldiers in the desert with minimal food and water and a broken-down vehicle. On at least four occasions, the applicant requested information on how to convert the applicant’s reserve status to active duty status and was provided no assistance or information from any of the leaders in the unit. The applicant believes the applicant could have excelled as a Soldier, if given the opportunity to convert to active-duty status. In addition to the many negative experiences the applicant had with this unit, the applicant tried to inform the platoon sergeant of the financial difficulties the applicant was experiencing with traveling back and forth from Johnson City, Tennessee, to Bluefield, West Virginia, a distance of 140 miles. Not once was the applicant offered any guidance or assistance. Not once did the leadership ask the applicant why the applicant was missing the unit training sessions. The applicant tried to attend as many unit training sessions as possible, but the applicant was financially unable to do so. The round trip to Bluefield, West Virginia, was a financial burden that eventually became too much for the applicant to continue. The applicant requests the board upgrade the discharge. The applicant was a young, inexperienced Soldier and did not realize the applicant could have contacted other units or recruiters for assistance to convert to active duty or transfer to another unit which was closer to the applicant’s residence. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178, Chapter 13 / NA / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 6 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF / The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the applicant did not respond to the notification. (2) Basis for Separation: The Notification of Separation Proceedings, dated 16 January 2007, reflects the applicant was being separated under the provisions of AR 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation, because the applicant had accrued 12 unauthorized absences from scheduled unit training assemblies in a one-year period. The commander did not consider the applicant to have future mobilization potential. Commander’s Report, dated 1 March 2007, reflects the unit contacted the applicant by phone and by mail. The applicant refused to return any phone calls. The commander believed the applicant would not be an asset to the U.S. Army on active duty and had shown an unwillingness to conform to military life. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 November 2005 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31B10, Military Police / 2 years 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: Certified Mail Receipt, dated 16 January 2007, reflects the Commander’s Statement Concerning 9th Unexcused Absence, dated 16 January 2007, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail. Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) letter, dated 20 August 2007, which reflects the applicant did not respond to the separation notice. The applicant called the unit to inform the unit the applicant would not be returning, but the applicant did not specify a reason. The SJA noticed the applicant lived two hours from the unit and offered the applicant an opportunity to return to the unit or a possible unit transfer before sending the separation action to the commanding general for action. The applicant was provided 15 days to respond or the action would go forward to the separation authority for final determination. Certified Mail Receipt, dated 27 August 2007, reflects the applicant signed for certified mail. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 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), 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 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a 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. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (3) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 12 (previously Chapter 13), provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because: The Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135– 91, chapter 4; Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence. (5) Paragraph 12-3, prescribes the service of Soldiers separated under this chapter normally will be characterized as under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted as determined under chapter 2, section III, unless an uncharacterized description of service is warranted. For Soldiers who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate. 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends financial issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. There is no evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the financial issues. The record shows the SJA provided the applicant with an opportunity to return to the unit or a unit transfer, with a suspense of 15 days to respond. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 behavioral health diagnoses for 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 financial issues affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the applicant was offered the opportunity to request transfer to a unit closer to applicant’s home of record in order to lessen the financial burden. The applicant refused to return any phone calls. Therefore, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the applicant’s unsatisfactory participation. 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 the unsatisfactory participation discharge was proper and equitable. (3) 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 12 unauthorized absences in a 1 year period, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 the applicant had no medical mitigation or additional circumstances sufficient enough to outweigh the severity of the misconduct – missing 12 drills. 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) As there were no SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. 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 AR20200003077 1