1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 March 2020 b. Date Received: 12 March 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, a separation code change, and a narrative reason change. The attorney on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was against equity and propriety. The applicant was improperly discharged for unsatisfactory performance because adequate rehabilitation efforts were never made. The applicant was inequitably discharged because the general (under honorable conditions) discharge was unfair considering the otherwise laudable military and combat service. The applicant served honorably without incident the first five years of service, including a combat tour in Afghanistan. Prior to the misconduct which led to the discharge, the applicant was a model Soldier. The service was so valued by the commander who recommended an honorable discharge and reported the applicant, beyond all misconduct, the character reflects a Soldier who was proud and motivated to serve. The post-service history also shows the applicant to be of moral character and integrity, and the misconduct was aberrant acts resulting from lack of judgment and circumstances. The applicant has had no incidents of criminal activity since the discharge. The applicant contends an upgrade would remove the stigma of the discharge and improve employment opportunities. The attorney and applicant further detail the contentions in the attorney-brief and in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 February 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 January 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 21 February 2015, the applicant was dismissed from Warrior Leader Course for disciplinary reasons. On 7 April 2015, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. On 10 April 2015, the applicant failed to present a cleanly groomed appearance. On 23 May 2015, the applicant was found in a drunken state and was too drunk to report to duty. The BAC was found to be .135 BAC. On 26 June 2015, the applicant received an Article 15 for being too drunk to perform the duties. On 9 July 2015, the bar to reenlistment was evaluated and extended. On 16 July 2015, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. On 27 August 2015, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. On 29 August 2015, the applicant was found to be in possession of alcohol, in violation of the terms set forth by the Army Substance Abuse Program. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 January 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 December 2013 / NIF (4 years according to the ERB) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 3 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 November 2010 - 11 December 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Germany / Afghanistan (30 January 2013 - 30 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the NATOMDL, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 20 February 2015, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards for the Warrior Leader Course by lacking motivation. Twelve Developmental Counseling Forms for performance, bar to reenlistment evaluations, and various acts of misconduct. Bar to Reenlistment Certificate, dated 7 April 2015, reflects the applicant was removed for cause for academic failure from NCOERS (Warrior Leaders Course). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 January 2016, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. CG Article 15, dated 26 June 2015, for being incapacitated for the proper performance of duty because of wrongful previous over-indulgence in intoxicating liquor on 22 May 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $479 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 30 October 2015, the applicant noted behavioral health issues and the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Deployed to Afghanistan and being exposed to explosions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney cover letter and brief; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; ARCOM Certificate; Commander's Report memorandum; Notification memorandum; and a third-party 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 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-8 prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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, a separation code change, and a narrative reason change. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is "JHJ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635- 5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 13, is "JHJ." The applicant contends being improperly discharged for unsatisfactory performance because adequate rehabilitation efforts were never made. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant contends being inequitably discharged because the general (under honorable conditions) discharge was unfair considering the otherwise laudable military and combat service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the post-service history shows the applicant to be of moral character and integrity, had no incidents of criminal activity, and the misconduct was aberrant acts resulting from lack of judgment and circumstance. 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 AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends an upgrade would remove the stigma of the discharge and improve employment opportunities. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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, 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 does not have a diagnosis or experience for application. Moreover, the applicant did not assert a diagnosis or experience for consideration. (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 the narrative reason and SPD code for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that there were insufficient circumstances for the Board's consideration to the requested change due to the applicant's actions at WLC, three alcohol incidents, two FTRs, and failure to maintain grooming standards all equate to an Unsatisfactory Performance reason being proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being improperly discharged for unsatisfactory performance because adequate rehabilitation efforts were never made. The Board considered this contention and determined that the numerous offenses outlined above illustrated a history of misconduct and attempts to not discharge the applicant had been exhausted. (3) The applicant contends being inequitably discharged because the general (under honorable conditions) discharge was unfair considering the otherwise laudable military and combat service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, warranted an honorable discharge even though the narrative reason was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the post-service history shows the applicant to be of moral character and integrity, had no incidents of criminal activity, and the misconduct was aberrant acts resulting from lack of judgment and circumstance. 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 post-service accomplishments were insufficient to outweigh the numerous acts of misconduct in service, this relief to the items other than the characterization is not warranted. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would remove the stigma of the discharge and improve employment opportunities. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the misconduct and warranted an upgrade to the characterization of service. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, warranted an upgrade. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code due to the numerous acts of misconduct, thus 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20200005605 1