1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 January 2020 b. Date Received: 23 January 2020 c. Counsel: 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, through counsel, an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions), removal of the entry for separation authority and a narrative reason change. The applicant's counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was discharged from the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) on 2 February 2011, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. During extreme family and personal turmoil, the applicant made the choice of going absent without leave (AWOL) and the severity and urgency of those matters mitigates the actions precipitating the discharge. Despite being separated with an adverse discharge, the applicant was devoted to a health care career and has performed in an outstanding manner. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant's post-service conduct warrants relief. The applicant appealed to the PAARNG for relief but was denied. The PAARNG changed the reason for separation from unsatisfactory performance to unsatisfactory participation. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant had honorable service including receiving awards. The applicant's counsel contends the Army Discharge Review Board has directed the requested relief numerous times for former ARNG members. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's NGB Form 22 block 23, contained an erroneous entry. The Board recommends the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's NGB Form 22: a. Block 23, narrative reason for separation changed to Unsatisfactory Participation. 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 Performance / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35f / NA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 2 February 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The Unit Readiness NCO indicated the notification dated 8 August 2010, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 11 August 2010. A U.S. Postal Service Mail Receipt reflects the certified letter was signed for by the addressee (applicant). (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was unreliable and failed to complete duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 January 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 September 2007 / 8 years (ARNG) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68X10, Mental Health Specialist / 3 years, 4 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 June 2008 - 1 April 2009 / HD (IADT) (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, PSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counsel provides memorandum, subject: Upgrade of Characterization of Service, dated 11 September 2019, issued by The Adjutant General's Office, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which reflects after reviewing the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of service, the Adjutant General directed the applicant's discharge from the PAARNG remain with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. The Form 22, block 23 was to be changed from NGR 600-200, 35f, Unsatisfactory Performance to NGR 600-200, 3-35j Unsatisfactory Participation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Counsel's Memorandum, Exhibits consisting of 327 pages. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has become a respected colleague, care provider, and instructor in the nursing field. 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. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135- 178, chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation. e. Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. (1) Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation. (2) Paragraph 13-1a (1), prescribes a 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. (3) Paragraph 13-3 states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be 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's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions), removal of the entry for separation authority and a narrative reason change. The applicant's NGB Form 22, reflects the applicant was discharged from the ARNG on 2 February 2011, under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 8-35f, due to Unsatisfactory Performance with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service The applicant's counsel contends during extreme family and personal turmoil, the applicant made the choice of going AWOL and the severity and urgency of those matters mitigates the actions precipitating the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant's post-service conduct warrants the requested relief. 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 applicant's counsel contends the applicant appealed to the PAARNG for relief but was denied. The PAARNG changed the reason for separation from unsatisfactory performance to unsatisfactory participation. The applicant's counsel contends the applicant had honorable service including receiving awards. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant's counsel contends the Army Discharge Review Board has directed the requested relief numerous times for former ARNG members. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. Based on the applicant's AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's NGB Form 22, block 23, "NGR 600-200, 6-35f Unsatisfactory Performance. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation. NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation. The PAARNG Adjutant General directed the applicant NGB 22, block 23 be changed to NGR 60-200, 6-35j Unsatisfactory Participation. The applicant's AMHRR is void of a change to the NGB 22. 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. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnosis of Anxiety DO was made while the applicant was on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience 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 was diagnosed with Anxiety DO while in the military, military medical records indicate that this condition had improved substantially and had essentially resolved prior to the applicant's decision to go AWOL. (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 Anxiety DO outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - Unsatisfactory Participation - for the aforementioned reason. b. Prior Decisions Cited: AR20150008441; AR20140002923; AR20060014107; AR20080003844; and AR20040004733. The first three cases counsel cited were for purposes of stating that the Board has previously granted former ARNG members relief. The fourth case relates to a specific case involving a Ch 10/AWOL/facts and circumstances surrounding the AWOL provided mitigation. In response to these prior cases and comparing them to the current case, the Board voted that relief was not warranted with the available evidence. c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant's counsel contends during extreme family and personal turmoil, the applicant made the choice of going AWOL and the severity and urgency of those matters mitigates the actions precipitating the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant being unreliable, failing to complete duty, Unsatisfactory Participation and AWOL status were not outweighed by the applicant's family issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant's counsel contends the applicant's post-service conduct warrants the requested relief. 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 applicant's post-service conduct did not outweigh the applicant's misconduct. (3) The applicant's counsel contends the applicant had honorable service including receiving awards. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the applicant's service record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and 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 to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By being unreliable, failing to complete duty and Unsatisfactory Participation, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant's counsel contends that, based on the prior cases cited as referenced in paragraph b above, a discharge upgrade is warranted. The Board considered the prior cases cited by the applicant and concurs that the Board has previously directed relief for former ARNG members in AR20140002923, AR20060014107, and AR20040004733. In AR20080003844, the Board decision was based an upgrade decision in on the "facts and circumstances surrounding the AWOL." In this case, the Board determined that relief was not warranted with the available evidence. d. 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. e. 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 Anxiety DO did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of being unreliable, failing to complete duty, Unsatisfactory Participation and AWOL. 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 upgrade the applicant's reason for discharge but determined that an administrative change to Unsatisfactory Participation was not captured on the current NGB Form 22 and recommended to the PA NGB to issue a new NGB Form 22 reflecting the change previously approved. (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 NGB 22: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Unsatisfactory Participation d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35j 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 AR20200003571 1