1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 February 2020 b. Date Received: 2 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request is based on the enlistment contract, which was initiated and completed for an officer candidate (MOS: 09S) with prior service (twice being honorably discharged). Since it was not an initial enlistment, the minimum service obligation of eight years is not applicable. As an officer candidate, the applicant was limited to a two-year commissioning window that was not met due to furlough resulting in a loss of federal OCS slots and a backlog in state commissioning candidate slots. The applicant was involuntarily disenrolled from the program because the applicant reached the two-year limit. The selection officer notified the applicant of having to reapply in the future provided the applicant remained in an active drilling status, and was transferred first to a communications unit in Yonkers, NY and then to an infantry unit in Manhattan, NY. The applicant did not elect an MOS reclassification from 09S to 11B. It was done without the applicant’s input or request, based on past service in the Marine Corps. The applicant did not contest it, because of the intention to reapply to the officer program. Throughout the service period, the applicant performed the duties as directed, met all requirements, and even earned personal awards (one of which is not reflected in the awards section). The applicant was left in an unpromotable billet/section, unable to rejoin the officer selection program, and never received any loan repayments (Box 8 of the enlistment contract included an annex code “AL” (Student Loan Repayment)). No repayment ever occurred, despite repeated requests through command via education officer, IG complaint, and letter to 10th NY district Congressional office. During the period of service, the applicant was accepted to a post- baccalaureate premedical program covered by “VocRehab” and intended to continue service as an active-duty medical officer in the Army. Following active training with the NYARNG in 2017, the applicant notified the command of the intent to cease drilling after four years without any of the reasons for enlistment or terms of the enrollment having been met or even addressed. Currently, the applicant is a Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) candidate with AMEDD. The RE-3 code is unfair, inappropriate, and adds undue difficulty (in the form of waivers) in the pursuit of continued service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 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: NIF / NGR 600-200 and AR 135-178 / NA / RE-3 CW / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 July 2018 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: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 December 2013 / 8-year MSO, ARNGUS b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 36 / Bachelor’s Degree and Postbaccalaureate Studies / 147 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 12 years, 7 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMCR, 24 August 1995 – 4 August 1996 / NA USMC, 5 August 1996 – 4 August 2000 / HD USMCR, 5 August 2000 – 15 January 2003 / NA USMC-KM, 16 January 2003 – 15 July 2003 / HD USMCR, 16 July 2003 – 23 August 2003 / NIF Break in Service, 24 August 2003 – 4 December 2003 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / (OEF, NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, AFRMMD, ASR, MCGCM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Case separation packet is NIF. DD Form 4/1 (Enlistment Document) reflects the applicant enlisted on 5 December 2013 for a period of 8 years in the Army National Guard of the United States. The form further states the “eight-year service requirement is called the Military Service Obligation,” and additional details of the enlistment are in Annex, AL. Guard Annex (Enlistment Agreement Army National Guard), date 5 December 2013, reflects, in pertinent part, the applicant had enlisted under the program of and assured of attending course for MOS: 09S Commissioned Officer Candidate. The applicant’s NGB Form 22, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of the 8-year military service obligation. The applicant was discharged under the authority of NGR 600-200, Chapter 6, and AR 135-178, without a narrative reason. The NGB Form 22 was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. Orders 193-1012, dated 12 July 2018, reflects the applicant’s discharge from the ARNG and reserve of the Army, effective 12 July 2018, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service, a reenlistment code of RE-3, loss definition and code as Continuous and Willful Absence (CW), and the authority as NGR 600-200. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with listed attachments. 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 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 United States Code; and Department of Defense 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 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 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 effect at the time and in pertinent part, states 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 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 6-35j 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 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. g. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is 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 honorable and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. The applicant’s NGB Form 22, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Chapter 6 and AR 135-178, by reasons unknown, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change because the RE-3 code is unfair, inappropriate, and adds undue difficulty (in the form of waivers) while in the pursuit of continued service and the applicant is currently an HSPS candidate with AMEDD. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends, in effect, the request to upgrade is based on the following events: being involuntarily disenrolled from the officer candidate course although the enlistment contract was initiated and completed as an officer candidate (MOS: 09S); being involuntarily reclassified to the 11B MOS; being left in an unpromotable billet and unable to rejoin the officer selection program; and after four years of drilling without any of the reasons for enlistment or terms of the enrollment being met or even addressed, the applicant notified the command of the intent to cease drilling in 2017. The applicant’s AMHRR contains Orders 339-1049, dated 5 December 2014, which withdrew the PMOS 09S10 and SMOS 11B10, and awarded PMOS 11B10; an enlistment document (DA Form 4) reflects an agreement to enlist in the ARNGUS for an eight- year Military Service Obligation and additional enlistment agreement were detailed in Annex L (AL) to DD Form 4 on Student Loan Repayment Program Addendum; and a printout congratulating the applicant for a successful reservation for OCS as a US Army Commissioned Officer Candidate. The applicant’s numerous contentions and reasons for upgrade were carefully considered; however, the available AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends, in effect, throughout the service, the applicant performed the duties as directed, met all the requirements, and even earned personal awards not reflected in the records. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant did not submit any evidence on earned awards not reflected in the record, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends never receiving any loan repayments, despite repeated requests through the command, education officer, IG complaint, and a letter to the 10th NY district congressional officer. The applicant’s contention on the loan repayments does not fall within this Board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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 Contentions: (1) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change because the RE-3 code is unfair, inappropriate, and adds undue difficulty (in the form of waivers) while in the pursuit of continued service and the applicant is currently an HSPS candidate with AMEDD. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the service record, and determined the discharge is proper and equitable because, the applicant willfully failed to complete the contractual obligation and stopped reporting to drills. (2) The applicant contends the request to upgrade is based on the following events: being involuntarily disenrolled from the officer candidate course although the enlistment contract was initiated and completed as an officer candidate (MOS: 09S); being involuntarily reclassified to the 11B MOS; being left in an unpromotable billet and unable to rejoin the officer selection program; and after four years of drilling without any of the reasons for enlistment or terms of the enrollment being met or even addressed, the applicant notified the command of the intent to cease drilling in 2017. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined that relief was not warranted as the Army is not an at- will employer and the decision to stop reporting to drills was known by the applicant to have consequences. (3) The applicant contends throughout the service, the applicant performed the duties as directed, met all the requirements, and even earned personal awards not reflected in the records. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By willfully failing to complete the contractual obligation and failing to report to drills, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends never receiving any loan repayments, despite repeated requests through the command, education officer, IG complaint, and a letter to the 10th NY district congressional officer. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with loan repayment matters, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant’s failure to report to drills is not an acceptable response to dealing with loan repayment matters, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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, the applicant willfully failed to complete the contractual obligation and stopped reporting to drills and there were no sufficiently meritorious circumstances which might outweigh said misconduct. 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 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 / 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 AR20200007468 1