1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 May 2020 b. Date Received: 19 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were certain circumstances that were not reviewed for the discharge that the applicant believes should have been taken into consideration. The applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct and deeply regrets the actions that have led to this decision. At the time, the applicant was a recycle from another company and was also placed on holdover status in the new company. The applicant’s mental health was not great and the applicant had also been to the hospital for pains with Achilles tendon. The mental stress and feelings of hopelessness caused the applicant to turn to alcohol and tobacco to cope. The applicant has since grown as an individual and has a much clearer vision of what to achieve in life. The applicant would like to reenlist, however am not able to because of the discharge. The applicant is not the same person and hopes not to be defined by past actions. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 May 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 May 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 April 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to obey a lawful written order by wrongfully possessing tobacco while in Initial Entry Training (IET) status and leaving the applicant’s assigned room after bed check. On two occasions the applicant made a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer and failed to be at the appointed place of duty on two occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 24 April 2018, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 May 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 February 2017 / 4 years, 2 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 year, 3 months, 2 weeks d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 26 March 2018, for: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel C__ R. V__, to wit: paragraph 6b(2), 232dMed Bn Policy #17, dated 6 July 2016, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, did, at or near Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Fort Sam Houston, TX, on or about 26 January 2018, fail to obey the same by leaving the applicant’s assigned room after bed check. At or near JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, on or about 24 January 2018, with intent to deceive, make to Sergeant First Class (SFC), an official statement, to wit: “[Applicant] have an appointment for BH at 0800 at the Moreno Clinic,” or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. At or near JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, TX, on or about 26 January 2018, with intent to deceive, make to SFC, an official statement, to wit: “[Applicant] called yesterday and [applicant’s] social worker said could see [applicant] at 1630,” or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $382.00 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 18 April 2018, for: At or near JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, TX, on or about 2 April 2018, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: 0500 appointment located at the Troop Medical Clinic/Academic Support Building. At or near JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, TX, on or about 5 April 2018, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: 0500 accountability formation located at Foxtrot Company Training Area. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $382.00 pay and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag) reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA) effective 4 December 2017. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 11 January 2018, reflects the applicant was counseled for being a holdover in Foxtrot Company, 232nd Medical Battalion, JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, TX. Nine additional developmental counseling forms, for various acts of misconduct and separation counseling. DA Form 268 reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 5 March 2018. DA Form 268 reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA) effective 2 April 2018. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 18 November 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. the applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, severity not disqualifying for military service. The Soldier was amenable to behavioral health treatment but unlikely to successfully respond to command efforts at rehabilitation. 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 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 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. 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. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, certain circumstances were not reviewed for consideration for the discharge. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was for a pattern of misconduct and deeply regrets the actions that have led to this decision. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his 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. The applicant marred the quality of service by receiving two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the UCMJ. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s mental health was not great and the applicant had also been to the hospital for pain with the Achilles tendon. The mental stress and feelings of hopelessness caused the applicant to turn to alcohol and tobacco to cope. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contentions. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 18 November 2017, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and was amenable to behavioral health treatment. The applicant would like to reenlist, however am not able to because of the discharge. The applicant is not the same person and hopes not to be defined by past actions. 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.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. 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. 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. 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 diagnosis: the applicant held an in- service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with related hospitalization secondary to training failure. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with related hospitalization secondary to training failure. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given an Adjustment Disorder is a low-level difficulty adjusting and coping with stressors, but does not impair conscious decision making, there is no medical mitigation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failure to obey a lawful written order by wrongfully possessing tobacco while in IET status, leaving the applicant’s assigned room after bed check, false official statements, and FTRs – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s mental health was not great, and the applicant had also been to the hospital for pain with the Achilles tendon. The mental stress and feelings of hopelessness caused the applicant to turn to alcohol and tobacco to cope. The Board considered this contention and determined the only potentially mitigating BH condition the applicant held in service was an Adjustment Disorder, and that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. (2) The applicant would like to reenlist, however is not able to because of the discharge. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code. 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 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failure to obey a lawful written order by wrongfully possessing tobacco while in IET status, leaving the applicant’s assigned room after bed check, false official statements, and FTRs. The Board further considered the totality of the record and determined there are insufficient mitigating factors such that warrant outweigh the basis for separation. 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20200008042 1