1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 January 2020 b. Date Received: 10 January 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, the applicant was discharged for not completing stateside training while engaged in actual combat operations in Afghanistan from November 2005 to April 2008 as a civilian. The applicant had prior honorable service in the Army National Guard. The applicant reenlisted in the ROTC program and drill simultaneously with 1/112 HHC Armor. The applicant graduated in 2005 and was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the USAR. There was no Officer Basic Course date or unit of assignment given at that time. In the interim, the applicant was hired as a private security specialist, charged with leading physical security operations in Afghanistan. The applicant was recognized for his accomplishments. While conducting these combat operations, the IRR pressed for the applicant’s return to stateside to train for military operations. The applicant feels it was unconscionable that the USAR would tender a general discharge to an individual while that individual was engaged in distinguished civilian combat operations in Afghanistan. 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. 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: NIF / AR 135-175 / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 November 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date of Appointment / Period of Appointment: NIF / NIF b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: NIF / NIF / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / NIF / NIF d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 21 May 1999 – 6 May 2002 / HD AD, 11 January 2000 – 21 July 2000 / HD ARNG, 23 July 2003 – 13 May 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: ASR, Parachutist Badge g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: Notification of Promotion Status, dated 29 March 2007, reflects the applicant was inform there was consideration for promotion to the grade of first lieutenant by an Administrative Promotion Board which convened on 1 March 2007 and the applicant was found not qualified for promotion at that time. The applicant was not selected for promotion because there was no evidence the applicant had completed the military education requirement. The memorandum also stated officer in the applicant’s grade who were not selected for promotion would be retained for a minimum of six months from the date they would have been promoted had they been selected. Accordingly, if not discharged or promoted sooner, the applicant would be discharged no later than 18 months from the date the applicant was found not to be qualified. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Orders 07-247-0002, dated 4 September 2007, NGB Form 22, ARNG HD Certificate, Certificate of Appreciation, Photos from USAID, ROTC Award, dated 29 April 2005, American Legion Award, dated 6 May 2004, Certificate of Completion, Physical Fitness and Top Gun Award from Colin County Law Enforcement Academy, Certificate of Completion, DynCorp International 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted by the applicant. 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. Army Regulation 135-175 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Separation of Officer) provides policy, criteria, and procedures for the separation of officers of the Army National Guard and the US. Reserve, except for officers serving on active duty or active duty for training exceeding 90 days. (1) Chapter 4, Section I describes conditions under which USAR officers may be discharged from their status as Reserves of th4 Army and prescribes the criteria for discharging them. (2) Paragraph 4-1d states officers separated under this under the provisions of this chapter will be discharged under honorable conditions and issued either an Honorable or General Discharge Certificate, as determined by the discharge authority. (3) Paragraph 4-6 states an officer in the grade of second lieutenant who has completed the required statutory military service obligation will be discharged on being considered but not recommended for promotion by the appropriate commander on or before the date on which the officer completes 3 years of promotion service. 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s available AMHRR and the issues and documents submitted with the application were reviewed. The AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events, which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. Orders 07-247-00002, dated 4 September 2007, reflects the applicant was discharged from the US Army Reserve, effective 15 November 2007. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends the discharge was due to the applicant not completing stateside training while engaged in actual combat operations in Afghanistan from November 2005 to April 2008 as a civilian. The applicant contends there was prior honorable service in the Army National Guard. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends it was unconscionable that the USAR would tender a general discharge to an individual while that individual was engaged in distinguished civilian combat operations in Afghanistan. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered regarding the discharge from the USAR. The merit of the contentions cannot be substantiated because the facts and circumstances that led to the applicant’s discharge from the USAR are not contained in the available record. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record 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 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 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 discharge was due to the applicant not completing stateside training while engaged in actual combat operations in Afghanistan from November 2005 to April 2008 as a civilian. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends there was prior honorable service in the Army National Guard. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD records. It revealed the applicant does have prior periods of honorable service. However, the facts and circumstances that led to the applicant’s discharge from the USAR are not contained in the available record for the Board to consider. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends it was unconscionable that the USAR would tender a general discharge to an individual while that individual was engaged in distinguished civilian combat operations in Afghanistan. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 had no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. 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 or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as there is no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for this item. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20200006730 1