1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 September 2020 b. Date Received: 9 September 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 strongly and lovingly served the country in the Army. The applicant flew from Africa to America on 23 September 2018 with French as a first language and no prior English. Three months later, the applicant voluntarily talked to a recruiter who got the applicant in the greatest Army in the world. The English language is still a barrier. The applicant used common sense to understand and adapt to the culture and courtesy in America. The applicant had a physical training record for completing 124 push-ups in 2 minutes. The applicant was insulted by a battle buddy who called the applicant “peace of shit.” When the applicant’s sergeant told the applicant that the battle buddy could not be made to apologize, the applicant was deeply depressed and went to behavioral health (BH) several times and to the commander asking to be switched to another unit or squad and nothing was done. Unfortunately, the applicant injured the applicant’s back and neck during Army activities and have had to deal with the pain every day. When the applicant received a profile stating not to lift more than 10 pounds, the provider did not take it seriously, changed it to 50 pounds, and sent the applicant to work. At that point the applicant was physically and mentally unable to perform and the applicant’s inertia caused a chapter. The applicant received counselings for things the applicant was still trying to understand how they work. Five Soldiers committed suicide during the applicant’s time at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The applicant could have been treated better and the situation could have been handled differently. The applicant’s depression was a part of the applicant’s issues and also the deep low back and neck pain led the applicant to not be able to perform and not be able to clearly express self. The applicant is being seen at the Veterans Affairs pain clinic for the same back and neck pain and is disabled. The honorable discharge is what the applicant needs to have an education and continue to serve the country in another field. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 July 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: 26 August 2020 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: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 July 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 March 2019 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 1 year, 5 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: BH Medical records provided by the applicant reflects: The applicant was referred by the commander, who completed a BH 101 Form, which was uploaded in the Healthcare Artifacts and Image Management system (HAIMS). On 11 June 2020, the applicant was evaluated for BH due to pending a chapter 14. The applicant was currently being treated for lower back pain which was at a pain level 7 on this date. Per the BH 101 Form: From the commander's viewpoint the applicant was a poor performing Soldier who was pending chapter separation for continual pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s past military performance was marginal and presently was poor. The following concerns have been observed: Chronic complaining, frequent fighting, riding sick call, isolative, desire for discharge, cheating and/or lying, difficulties following direction, difficulties with authority, difficulties with peers, and encourages insubordination. The following evidence of emotional/adjustment difficulty came to the command’s attention: Unusual behavior. The applicant was pending a FG Article 15 and chapter separation. The applicant reported a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the unit was picking on the applicant. The applicant noted that the NCO was no longer in the Army but another person was picking on the applicant until the applicant put hands on that person. The applicant did not take responsibility for anything and blamed problems on the unit, BH, and the primary care provider. The applicant screened negative for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), major depressive disorder, and denied any military sexual trauma. The applicant never deployed to a combat zone. The applicant has had multiple interactions with BH since going to the emergency room on 29 February 2020 and the sessions were usually the same. The applicant made a statement that the applicant might die but denies suicidal ideations. The applicant wanted BH providers to write a profile to get out of the applicant’s unit but refused any form of therapy unless the provider got the applicant out of the unit first. The applicant had no documented BH condition that would explain a pattern of misconduct. Based on information that was available, the applicant was cleared for chapter actions. Even in this approach to therapy or this evaluation, one can see how it would be a Soldier who wouldn't follow orders well. The applicant was defiant during this session. The applicant met the retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 and AR 635-200 for fitness and suitability for continued service and was cleared for chapter action. A copy of the completed DA Form 3822 was scanned into HAIMS as well as given to the applicant's escort in a sealed envelope for the commander. Orders 225-0172, dated 12 August 2020, reflects the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 26 August 2020 from the Regular Army. The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with a narrative reason of Pattern of Misconduct. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 27 August 2020, reflects the applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-2 effective 23 April 2020. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h. (2) AMHRR Listed: BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; separation orders; matters submitted to the commander; applicant and CMD email; medical records. 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’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s depression and injured back and neck from Army activities led the applicant to not being able to perform or clearly express self. The applicant is being seen at the Veterans Affairs pain clinic for the back and neck pain and is disabled. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support being disabled. The applicant provided several medical documents that reflects the applicant was seen for low back pain between 1 July 2019 and 10 August 2020 at the 673rd Medical Group. On 10 August 2020 the medical documents shows chronic mid to low back pain and also in care of neck pain (that has been treated with acupuncture with relief). The medical documents shows the applicant underwent a BH evaluation on 11 June 2020 and was cleared for chapter action. The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would allow educational benefits and continue to serve the country in another field. 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? 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 condition: Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? The applicant asserts depression in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the applicant’s assertion of depression and engagement with behavioral health in-service is acknowledged, there is no diagnosis or liberal consideration-qualifying experience for consideration. Accordingly, there is no medical mitigation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s depression and injured back and neck from Army activities led the applicant to not being able to perform or clearly express self. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s asserted depression does not outweigh the applicant’s pattern of misconduct basis of separation. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, an upgrade would allow educational benefits and continue to serve the country in another field. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post- 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do 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. 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’s asserted Depression did not outweigh the medically unmitigated pattern of misconduct basis of separation. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's record and found that it 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 General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of 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 AR20200008743 1