1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 January 2020 b. Date Received: 29 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, since leaving the Army, the applicant has matured and grown as a person. The applicant was discharged because of having a negative opinion toward females in the unit and the lack of support from the chain of command caused the applicant to resent the situation which led to the discharge. The applicant’s attitude has changed because of being currently employed in a hospitality industry. 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 August 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 June 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The notification of initiation of separation proceedings is void from the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The Commander’s Report (1st page NIF), reflects the following reason for recommended separation: On 14 March 2018, the applicant was disrespectful in deportment towards SGT J. M. P., a noncommissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a superior noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of the office, by pulling open the front of the applicant’s trousers and stuffing trash bags inside them and asked SGT J. M. P., “is this a secure spot,” or words to that effect. On 14 March 2018, the applicant, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SGT J. M. P. to “get down and out of the room,” or words to that effect, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, did at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, wrongfully failed to obey the same. On 22 February 2018, the applicant, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SGT C. J. to “sign in at the CQ desk on the Jog sheet starting at the specified hours,” or words to that effect, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, did at Schofield Barracks, wrongfully failed to obey the same. On 23 February 2018, the applicant, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by SGT C. J. to “sign out for sick call,” or words to that effect, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, did at Schofield Barracks, wrongfully failed to obey the same. On 23 January 2018, the applicant, was disrespectful in language towards SGT C. J., a noncommissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of the office, by saying to him, “You are a piece of shit,” or words to that effect. On 23 January 2018, the applicant, having received a lawful order from Sergeant C. J., a noncommissioned officer, then known by him to be a noncommissioned officer, to “stand the position of parade rest,” or words to that effect, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, willfully disobey the same. On 23 January 2018, the applicant, having received a lawful order from SFC M. A. W., a noncommissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a noncommissioned officer, to “report to the Brigade S3,” or words to that effect, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, did at Schofield Barracks, willfully disobey the same. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 July 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 August 2016 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 129 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 94E10, Radio & COMSEC Repairer / 2 years, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF Commander’s Report, dated (1st page NIF), reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15 on 6 March 2018, for having been found guilty of all charges and specifications (NIF). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $382 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (1st page) and Exam Appointment History printout. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment with a hospitality industry. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and document submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete documentation of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of honorable. 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 being discharged because of having a negative opinion toward females in the unit and the lack of support from the chain of command causing resentment. The available evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by an imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends obtaining employment with a hospitality industry. 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. 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: Anxiety Disorder NOS. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found diagnosis of Anxiety DO NOS was made while applicant was on active duty. (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 has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO, Anxiety Disorder and ADHD, sexual harassment is not part of the sequelae or natural history of any of these disorders. Additionally, neither condition affects the applicant's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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): (1) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. 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 no 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 the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being discharged because of having a negative opinion toward females in the unit and the lack of support from the chain of command causing the resentment. 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. (3) The applicant contends obtaining employment with a hospitality industry. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, no law or regulation provides an unfavorable discharge that must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board may consider the outstanding post-service conduct and the applicant’s performance and conduct during the service under review during proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board decided 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 BH diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder NOS and ADHD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of willful disobedience and disrespect. 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) 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 AR20200003568 1