1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 May 2020 b. Date Received: 26 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests separation program designator (SPD) and reentry eligibility (RE) code changes. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the actions undertaken by the unit were disproportionate to the applicant’s offense to separate the applicant from the military. The applicant believes a dishonorable discharge was overly punitive given the applicant voiced concerns to the unit in advance. The applicant wishes to re-enter the military but is unable to due to the dishonorable discharge. The applicant’s active duty record is flawless. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 June 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 / AR 135-178, NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. (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: 10 February 2012 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Bachelor’s Degree / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 10 years, 6 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 June 2001 - 31 May 2005 / HD USAR, 1 June 2005 - 21 August 2009 / HD (Break in Service) USAR, 10 February 2012 - 21 May 2014 / UOTHC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the AGCM, NDSM, GWTEM, and GWTSM. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 14-134-00005, dated 14 May 2014, reflects the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 14 April 2014. The applicant was discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) effective 21 May 2014. 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; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Master’s Degree. 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 135-178 sets forth 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 and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 SPD and RE code changes. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge, unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 14-134-00005, dated 14 May 2014. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an SPD and an RE Code change. Orders are published when service members are discharged from the USAR, which indicate the effective date and characterization of the discharge. SPD and RE Codes usually are not included in the order. Insomuch as the applicant’s discharge order does not have these elements, the ADRB has no basis for changing the discharge order. The applicant contends, in effect, the actions undertaken by the unit were disproportionate to the applicant’s offense to separate the applicant from the military. AR 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s active duty record was flawless. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant requests to re-enter the military. At the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant’s discharge orders do not reflect the RE code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility 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 RE codes if appropriate. 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 contends the actions undertaken by the unit were disproportionate to the applicant’s offense to separate the applicant from the military. The Board considered this contention but was unable to determine if the discharge was inequitable based on insufficient supporting evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-providence evidence. Without information to support the applicant’s claim, the Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the applicant’s active duty record was flawless. The Board considered this contention but found that the available evidence indicating applicant served honorably on active duty is not dispositive in deciding to the applicant’s characterization of USAR service. Therefore, the Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends obtaining a Master’s degree. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service accomplishments but found that, without information regarding the basis for applicant’s separation, this accomplishment cannot be found to outweigh the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Board was unable to determine if there was evidence of an in-service behavioral health condition that would provide medical mitigation for the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding inequity in the characterization of service, the applicant’s good prior service, and the applicant’s post- service accomplishments and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20200007469 1