1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 March 2020 b. Date Received: 9 March 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, following an honorable discharge from active duty, the applicant was transferred to the 94th Training Command in South Carolina. Four weeks later the applicant relocated to Atlanta, GA, 300 + miles away to attend college. After reporting for two months of drill, the applicant realized the long journey was a strain without a vehicle. Following a conversation with the platoon leader where the platoon leader suggested finding a unit closer to home, a DA Form 1380, Rescheduled Training (RST) was arranged for the applicant in order to work at the unit while in town to log days and make up drill dates the applicant could not attend. In the fall of 2011, the applicant met with the 92nd Chemical unit in Decatur, GA, 20 miles from his home and requested a transfer as directed. Unknown to the applicant, the 94th TC received deployment orders and the unit transfer did not happen. The applicant was not medically cleared for deployment, was marked a NO GO, and was left behind with the rear detachment. Shortly after that, the applicant received discharge papers for unsatisfactory participation, which applicant states is an error. The applicant says all of the previous RST’s were not properly being tracked and with the platoon leader and the majority of the unit gone, there was no one there to follow up with or assist. The applicant is seeking to have the under other than honorable conditions discharge upgraded. The applicant is currently a student in nursing school in pursuit of a master’s degree with plans to save lives, help in the community, and wishes to avoid roadblocks in the future due to a mischaracterized discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 April 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: Use of Illegal Drugs / AR 135-178, Chapter 12-1d / NA / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for testing positive for an illegal drug and having excessive unexcused absences from battle assembly. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 May 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2009 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 2 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 4 May 2009 – 14 October 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 11-137-00030, dated 17 May 2011, show the applicant was reduced in grade of rank from PV2 to PV1 prior to being discharged with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions. Memorandum for the Commander, dated 13 May 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for an illegal drug and had excessive unexcused absences from battle assembly. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Readiness and Deployment Checklist; Copy of Certificate of Achievement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently in nursing school in pursuit of a master’s degree with plans to save lives and help the community. 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 11 (previously Chapter 12), 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 11-1d, prescribes illegal drug use is serious misconduct. Discharge action normally will be based upon commission of a serious offense. However, relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug offense may be combined with one or more disciplinary infractions or incidents or other misconduct and processed for discharge. (6) Paragraph 11-8, states 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 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’s AMHRR is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 11-137-00030, dated 17 May 2011. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends all the previous RSTs were not properly being tracked and with the applicant platoon leader sinceand the majority of the unit deployed, there was no one to follow up with or assist. The available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends post-service accomplishments, is currently in nursing school in pursuit of a Master’s Degree with plans to save lives and help the community. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on 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 all of the previous RST’s were not properly being tracked by platoon leader and the majority of the unit deployed, there was no one to follow up with or assist. The Board considered this contention, but determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s OMPF or applicant-provided evidence to support a finding that the absences were excused. In addition, the applicant’s drug use warranted discharge and diminished the quality of service in addition to the RST’s. (2) The applicant contends post-service accomplishments, applicant is currently in nursing school in pursuit of his Master’s Degree with plans to save lives and help the community. 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 applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not merit upgrade. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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, there was insufficient evidence to support applicant’s contentions. 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 under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. The applicant missed battle assemblies and did drugs while on active duty. (3) 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 DD-214 / 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 AR20200006105 1