1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 17 January 2020 b. Date Received: 24 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a misdiagnosed heart condition severely affected the applicant’s ability to function in any capacity and the applicant was not adequately able to perform the duties as a Reservist. The applicant suffered emotionally and physically. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 December 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: NIF / AR 135-175 / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 April 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: An Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 26 February 2008, reflects the Legal Specialist of ARMEDCOM mailed the applicant’s Notification of Show Cause, dated 19 February 2008 and Notice of Scheduled Hearing, dated 21 February 2008 to the applicant at the last known address given on 22 February 2008. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to Annual Training on 21-22 May 2007 and had been deemed an unsatisfactory participant. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 17 May 2008, the board found: the applicant did fail to participate in the USAR, and the findings warranted separation from military service; the applicant intentionally neglected to furnish the unit a current address of record and the finding warranted separation from military service; and the applicant’s behavior was unbecoming of a USAR Officer and warranted separation from military service. The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the USAR and the separation be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 March 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: Oath of Office signed on 5 February 2001 / NIF b. Age at Appointment / Education: 36 / Associates Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 66H, Medical Surgical Nurse / NIF d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NIF g. Performance Ratings: 5 February 2001 – 4 February 2002 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Medical documents 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 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 135-175 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Separation of Officer) provides policy, criteria, and procedures for the separation of officers of the Army National Guard and the US. Reserve, except for officers serving on active duty or active duty for training exceeding 90 days. (1) Chapter 2, Section I prescribes the criteria and procedures governing the involuntary separation of Reserve officers of the Army when their retention is not in the best interest of the service. (2) Paragraph 2-11 authorizes involuntary separation of an officer due to moral or professional dereliction. Officers discharged under this paragraph may be furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate, or other than honorable conditions discharge. 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’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends a misdiagnosed heart condition severely affected the applicant’s ability to function in any capacity and the applicant was not adequately able to perform the duties as a Reservist. The applicant suffered emotionally and physically. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought to be deemed unfit for duty due to medical reasons before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. 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: applicant asserts that her cardiac condition, Supraventricular Tachycardia, and treatment thereof mitigates the UOTHC discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found that, while the applicant submitted medical documentation confirming SVT treatment, there was no medical documentation provided which indicated applicant was diagnosed with SVT at the time of her separation from the Army. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined the following: Review of the medical documentation provided by the applicant indicates that she underwent a cardiac ablation procedure for Supra Ventricular Tachycardia on 3 Apr 2013. Documentation indicates that the applicant’s procedure was difficult and prolonged and resulted in several post-procedural complications (pericardial effusion, elevated troponins). While the advisor appreciates the severity of the applicant’s cardiac condition, the advisor can make no recommendation regarding medical mitigation due to the lack of contemporaneous medical documentation at the time of her misconduct (2007). There are two medical entries in AHLTA-one is dated 30 Sep 2008 and contains no information regarding the applicant’s vital signs. The second note is dated 5 June 2010 and it documents that the applicant’s heart rate and blood pressure were within normal limits. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends a misdiagnosed heart condition severely affected the applicant’s ability to function in any capacity and the applicant was not adequately able to perform the duties as a Reservist. The applicant suffered emotionally and physically. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined 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, the applicant’s diagnosis of a cardiac condition did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of unsatisfactory participant and FTR. 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, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) There is no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are 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 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 AR20200003111 1