1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 April 2020 b. Date Received: 6 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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge listed as uncharacterized should be changed to a medical discharge to become eligible for VA loan. The uncharacterized is not relevant for a VA loan and does not properly show the service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 March 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: Defective Enlistment or Reenlistment / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35d(3) / NA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 19 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 January 2006 / 8 years MSO (6 years, PAARNG) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 1 year, 11 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement Army National Guard Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment as Guard Annex completed by all enlistment in the Army National Guard under the provisions of NGR 600-200, in pertinent part, states the applicant will enter and satisfactorily complete an initial period of active duty training (IADT) to become qualified in an MOS as soon as training space was available, and the applicant understands having to enter IADT within 270 days after the enlistment. Orders Number 6031007, dated 31 January 2006, prescribed orders for the applicant to report 95th Adjutant Battalion (Reception), Fort Sill, on 17 August 2006 for an advanced individual training for approximately 16 weeks or upon completion of basic and MOS training in MOS 13B10, pursuant IADT under 10 USC § 12301. Memorandum, dated 28 December 2007, Subject: Initiation of Discharge Action indicates separation action had been initiated for Defective Enlistment Agreement for the applicant. The applicant had sustained an LOD injury in June 2006, but never completed a follow-up medical care, and had now exceeded the allowable time period to be rescheduled for IADT. The applicant must meet the medical standards and enlist as a glossary non-prior service Soldier if reenlistment is desired at a future date. The applicant’s NGB Form 22, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of NGR 600-200, paragraph 8- 35d(3), with a narrative reason of Defective Enlistment or Reenlistment. There were no PMOS awarded; no military education; no awards; and was not transferred to another command. The NGB Form 22 was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF 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 (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 135-91 states that 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 that 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 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 2-11a, prescribes service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status (see glossary). (4) Paragraph 7–3a, prescribing for defective enlistments or reenlistments, states: basis for defective enlistment or reenlistment agreement exists in the following circumstances: (1) As a result of a material misrepresentation by recruiting or retention personnel, upon which the Soldier reasonably relied, and the Soldier was induced to enlist or reenlist with a commitment for which the Soldier was not qualified; (2) the Soldier received a written enlistment or reenlistment commitment from recruiting or retention personnel for which the Soldier was qualified, but which cannot be fulfilled by the Army; and (3) the enlistment or reenlistment was involuntary. (5) Paragraph 7-3b prescribing for characterization or description, states: Service will be characterized as honorable, unless an uncharacterized description of service, or an order of release from custody and control of the Army (by reason of void enlistment) is required under chapter 2, section III. (6) Paragraph 7-3c prescribing for requirements, states: This provision does not bar appropriate disciplinary action or other administrative separation proceedings regardless of when the defect is raised. Separation is appropriate under this provision only in the following circumstances: (1) The Soldier did not knowingly participate in creation of the defective enlistment or reenlistment; (2) the Soldier brings the defect to the attention of appropriate authorities within 30 days after the defect is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered by Soldier; (3) the Soldier requests separation instead of other authorized corrective action; and (4) the request otherwise meets such criteria as established by this regulation. And the separation authority is according to the authorities cited in paragraph 1–12, may order separation under this paragraph. (7) Glossary defines Entry Level Status (ELS) as, in pertinent part: Upon enlistment, the first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days of active service. A member of a RC who is not on active duty or who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry level status upon enlistment in a RC. Entry level status for such a member of a RC terminates 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT for one continuous period of 180 days or more or 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. f. 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 United States (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 AGR, IET, ADT, and 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 United States (OCONUS) training, including 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 6-35d defers to AR 135-178, chapter 7, (Except (4) below) for the following reasons for separation: (1) Underage enlistment: RE 3. LC: MK; (2) Erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, or extension: RE 1 or 3. LC: EG; (3) Defective enlistment or reenlistment. RE 1, (If fault of the Army) or RE 3. LC: EG; (4) Failure to attend IET (phase I and phase II) anytime within 24 months or those Soldiers who refuse to ship as scheduled. RE 3. LC: PE; and (5) Fraudulent enlistments or reenlistments. Administrative separation board procedures per paragraph 6-32 are required. Waiver of the fraudulent entry and suspension of separation per AR 135-178, chapter 7 must be approved prior to the determination. RE 3 or 4. LC: FP 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) and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 8-35d(3) (currently, Paragraph 6- 35d(3)), Defective Enlistment or Reenlistment, with an Uncharacterized discharge. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant was separated under the provisions of then paragraph 8-35d(3), currently paragraph 6-35d(3), NGR 600-200, with an Uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Defective Enlistment or Reenlistment.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The regulation stipulates a RE-3 will be assigned. The applicant contends the current discharge should be changed to a medical discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical condition during the discharge processing, warranting separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans’ benefits, specifically for a VA loan. Eligibility for veterans’ benefits does 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. 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. 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: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found 50% VA service-connection establishes the MDD existed 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, regarding the applicant’s BH history, there is no documentation in the applicant’s military medical records indicating the applicant reported BH symptoms or was diagnosed with a BH-related condition while in service. The applicant is 50% service connected by the VA for MDD. It is important to realize that VA examinations are based on different standards and parameters than DOD evaluations. VA examinations do not address whether a medical condition met or failed Army retention criteria or if it was a ratable condition at the time of service. Therefore, a VA disability rating does not imply failure to meet Army retention standards at the time of service. A subsequent diagnosis of MDD through the VA is not indicative of a misdiagnosis or other injustice at the time of service. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (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 MDD outweighed the separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the current discharge should be changed to a medical discharge, warranting narrative reason change. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant had sustained an injury in June 2006, but never completed follow- up medical care, and after two years’ service had not completed basic training and exceeded allowable window, requiring discharge under NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35(d)3. Medical records contain applicant did not qualify for a medical discharge and met retention standards, but did not follow through with enlistment commitment. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans’ benefits, specifically for a VA loan. 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. In addition, the applicant was discharge prior to completing basic training, so the applicant was not a veteran deserving of veteran’s benefits. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 post- service diagnosed MDD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of not completing basic training in two years’ of service. 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 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 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 AR20200006569 1