1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 December 2019 b. Date Received: 16 December 2019 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, that the applicant was wrongfully reported and discharged for AWOL two months before ETS date. The applicant contends being told by the First Sergeant to bring all equipment, turn it in, and to go home. The applicant did as told, but was labeled as AWOL and discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge instead of an Honorable discharge the applicant would have received if the applicant could have finished the final two months of duty as the applicant planned. Since being discharged, the applicant has started college studying Computer Information Technology and with a discharge upgrade it would help to be eligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill to help with tuition. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 October 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / Chapter 6, paragraph 6-35j, NGR 600-200 / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 April 2019 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: General (Under Honorable Conditions) NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 6 March 2019, the applicant was notified of an administrative Board Hearing that would convene on 13 April 2019 and continue through 14 April 14 April 2019. The board was to consider whether the applicant should be administratively discharged from the Georgia Army National Guard under the provisions of AR 135-178, Chapter 12, paragraph 12-1, for unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. On 13 April 2019, an administrative separation board convened to determine should the applicant be separated from the Georgia Army National Guard and the Reserve of the Army prior to the expiration of term of service, under the provision of AR 135-178, Chapter 12-1a(1), unsatisfactory participation. The board, having carefully considered the evidence before it found the allegations of unsatisfactory participation, in the notice of proposed separation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence recommended the applicant be separated from the Georgia Army National Guard with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 June 2013 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 10 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 21 June 2013 to 8 September 2013 / NA ADT, 9 September 2013 to 13 December 2013 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since being discharged he has started college studying Computer Information Technology. 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. 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 6-8a, 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. (3) Paragraph 6-b prescribes if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspect of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. (4) Paragraph 6-34 prescribes Reentry Eligibility codes are determined at separation. They provide information concerning the Soldier’s service in the ARNG, which will be considered upon future enlistment. If a Soldier will receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the reason for discharge is non-waivable for enlistment, the RE code will be RE 4. If the reason for separation is waivable, the RE code will be RE 3. If a Soldier receives a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the RE code is RE 4. Table 6-1 defines the differences between RE codes: RE-3 Applies to: a person not fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but this disqualification is waivable. (5) Chapter 6-35 prescribes for the separation/discharge from State ARNG and/or Reserve of the Army and the reasons, applicability, and codes for administrative separation or discharge from the Reserve of the Army, the State ARNG only, or both. These reasons may be used for separation from the State ARNG only. (6) Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, Chapter 12, for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders may recommend retention of Soldiers who have accrued 9 or more unexcused absences within a 1-year period. Submit requests with justification for retention to the State MPMO/G1. Include verification that the notification requirements of AR 135-91 and paragraph 6- 32 have been met. RE 3. LC: CW. 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. The applicant’s available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) information is limited on the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to discharge from the Army National Guard of Georgia and the Reserves of the Army. The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service); however, it was not authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature. The NGB Form 22 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600- 200, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-35j, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending that the applicant was wrongfully reported and discharged for AWOL two months before ETS date. The applicant contends being told by the First Sergeant to bring all equipment and turn it in and to go home. The applicant did as told, and the applicant was labeled as AWOL and discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge instead of an Honorable discharge the applicant would have received if the applicant could have finished the final two months of duty as the applicant had planned. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, a further determination as to the upgrading of the applicant discharge cannot be made because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. The applicant expressed desires for an upgrade of the discharge for the purpose of being eligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill to help with tuition. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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? 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): The applicant seeks relief contending that the applicant was wrongfully reported and discharged for AWOL two months before ETS date because the applicant was told by the 1SG to bring all equipment, turn it in, and to go home. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support this contention besides the applicant’s claim, which does not meet the burden of proof where the applicant was not required to show up to drill for the final two months of the agreed upon contract, thus no relief is warranted. 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 there were no mitigating circumstances for the Board’s consideration, and the applicant did not provide any evidence to support the claim of not being required to complete drill attendance. 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, as 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: 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 AR20200006811 1