1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 9 April 2020 b. Date Received: 5 May 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, at the time of the applicant’s discharge the applicant did not have transportation or a way to attend drill which was four hours away. The applicant’s unit was not understanding of the situation. The applicant also contends an honorable discharge would make the applicant eligible for Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and would be able to purchase a home. The applicant planned to complete 20 years of honorable service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / NGR 600- 200, Paragraph 6-35j / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 January 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 March 2009 / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment by a period of 6 years on 29 May 2014, giving the applicant a new ETS of 18 March 2021. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M20, Motor Transport Operator / 7 years, 10 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 19 March 2009 to 30 January 2017 / GD IADT, 20 July 2009 to 20 November 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) USAR, 2 June 2017 to 29 March 2021 / HD IADT, 1 October 2017 to 30 August 2018 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ARCAM, ASR / The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects award of a second AAM, however, the award is not reflected on the NGB Form 22 or current DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 18 February 2015 - 17 February 2016 / Not Qualified 18 February 2019 - 17 February 2020 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Adjutant General, State of Georgia, Orders 012-813, dated 12 January 2017, reflects the applicant was reduced in rank from SGT/E-5 to SPC/E-4 effective 12 January 2017 for misconduct. The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not reflect this reduction. Commander’s Checklist dated 15 June 2016, and three Memorandums, Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence (send with each Absent without Leave), dated 22 February 2016, 7 March 2016, and 11 April 2016, reflects the applicant had unexcused absences on 20-21 February 2016, 5-6 March 2016, and 6-10 April 2016. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation field initiated effective 16 June 2016. Application for Discharge of Enlisted Personnel reflects the following: Reason for discharge: Unsatisfactory Participation: Failure to Report for Duty. On 21 November 2016, the applicant’s company commander requested a discharge date of 30 November 2016 with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. On 18 December 2016, the applicant’s battalion commander requested a discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (USC) (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 (DoD) 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct 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 USC; and DoD Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 135-91 states a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in - the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. e. 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 U.S. (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 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 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) Chapter 12 (previously Chapter 13), in affect at the time, provides in pertinent part, individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because: The Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91, chapter 4; Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence. (4) Paragraph 12-3, Characterization of service normally will be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines in chapter 2, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. f. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the ARNG and the ARNGUS enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-25 prescribes the discharge of Soldiers on active duty, (Title 10, USC) in Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), Initial Entry Training (IET), Active Duty for Training (ADT), and Active-Duty Operational Support (ADOS) status, as well as those ordered to active duty for contingency operations or under mobilization conditions, is governed by AR 635-200. All Outside Continental U.S. (OCONUS) training, including Annual Training (AT) is conducted in Title 10 ADT status. Refer to AR 135-178 when considering enlisted Soldiers not on active duty and those on full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) under Title 32 USC for discharge from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army. (3) Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders may recommend retention of Soldiers who have accrued 9 or more unexcused absences within a one-year period. Submit requests with justification for retention to the State MPMO/G1. Include verification the notification requirements of AR 135-91 and paragraph 6-32 have been met. RE 3. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by DoD Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local VA office further assistance. The applicant contends, in effect, at the time of the applicant’s discharge the applicant’s unit was not understanding of the situation that transportation was unavailable to attend drill. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before ceasing from attending drill which led to the separation action under review. The analyst notes a review of the applicant’s AMHRR reflects a reduction in rank from SGT/E-5 to SPC/E-4 effective 12 January 2017 on the Adjutant General, State of Georgia issued Orders 012-813, dated 12 January 2017, for misconduct. The NGB Form 22 reflects the applicant’s rank as SGT/E-5 with a date of rank of 18 February 2015. The ARNG Discharge Orders 038- 157, dated 7 February 2017 reflects the applicant’s rank as SGT/E-5. There is no evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR reflecting the reduction orders were revoked. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotion and Reductions) states: Chapter 10, Section II (Reduction for Misconduct), paragraph 10-3 states a Soldier convicted by a civil court (domestic or foreign) or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court (domestic or foreign) will be reduced or considered for reduction according to table 10–2 (Administrative Reduction/Board Convening Authorities). For SGT/E-5 reductions, Field grade commanders of any organization authorized a lieutenant colonel or higher rank commanders will be the reduction authority. Chapter 10, paragraph 10-17 (Reduction for unsatisfactory participation) states reductions under this paragraph are discretionary and wholly apart from discharge proceedings under AR 135-178 or reassignment under AR 140-10. A Soldier may be reduced one grade for unsatisfactory participation. The reduction authority for the rank concerned (see paragraph 10- 2), or higher commander in the chain of command, may reduce the Soldier. Reduction action is discretionary. A commander may initiate reduction proceedings by presenting documentary evidence (AR 135–91) of unsatisfactory participation to the appropriate reduction authority. The commander reducing the Soldier will inform the Soldier in person or by certified mail of the action contemplated and reasons. The Soldier may submit any pertinent matters in rebuttal. SGT through SGM may appear before a reduction board. If Soldier declines appearance, it will be in writing and will be considered as acceptance of the reduction action. A reduction board, when required, will be convened within 30 days after the Soldier is notified, in writing. There is no evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR that a reduction board was conducted or that the applicant declined appearance before a reduction board. 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention but concluded that due to the pattern and serious nature of the applicant’s misconduct – Unsatisfactory Participation: unexcused absences on 20-21 FEB 2016, 5-6 MAR 2016, and 6-10 APR 2016, relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance (3) The applicant contends, in effect, at the time of the applicant’s discharge the applicant’s unit was not understanding of the situation that transportation was unavailable to attend drill. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations as the applicant did not provide evidence to support the contention. There is no evidence available or presented by the applicant of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner other than the applicant’s statement. 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 the applicant’s missed drill reasoning was not enough to excuse the basis for separation – unsatisfactory participation. 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. (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 Change b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason 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 AR20200006253 1