1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 23 June 2020 b. Date Received: 14 July 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 an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was for missing several battle assemblies, however, at the time the applicant was tending to the applicant’s sick mother, who was recovering from a mild stroke. The applicant chose to stay by the applicant’s mother’s side because while in basic training in 2014, the applicant’s god mother passed away for the same reason. The applicant was not a trouble making Soldier, the applicant followed orders and performed to the best of the applicant’s ability. The applicant would like to reenlist in the military. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178, Chapter 13 / NA / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 March 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: Commander’s Report, dated 2 May 2017, reflects a reasonable effort was made to hand deliver the notification of the proposed separation, dated 15 March 2017, with a suspense of 30 days to acknowledge the notice and rights, however, the applicant refused to accept or acknowledge the delivery. The notification was also sent via certified mail, affidavit of service by mail is enclosed. The applicant failed or refused to respond within 30 calendar days. The applicant failed to attend 16 of 48 Unit Training Assemblies (Battle Assemblies). (Analyst notes, the commander’s report reflects there were 3 notifications of unexcused absences. The notifications in the separation packet only reflect 12 unexcused absences not 16). The commander recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Unsatisfactory participation degrades unit readiness and violates Army standards of behavior. This Soldier breached obligations to the Army and should no longer remain in a position of special trust and responsibility. The applicant's service has been honest and faithful. The applicant's military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant's unsatisfactory participation and related behavior were significant aspects of the applicant's conduct that outweighed the positive aspect(s) of the applicant's military record. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 June 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 December 2013 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / 10th Grade / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources / 3 years, 6 months, 15 days a. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 13 December 2013 - 27 June 2017 / UOTHC IADT, 11 June 2015 – 21 August 2015 / HD (Concurrent Service) d. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None e. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR f. Performance Ratings: NA g. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander’s Report as described in previous paragraph 3c. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 8 January 2017, reflects a counseling for failing to attend battle training assemblies (BTA) on 7 and 8 January 2017. The applicant was unavailable for signature. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 12 January 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from multiple unit training assemblies (MUTA) on 7 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) and 8 January 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2), and the next scheduled training assembly was on 11 February 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 12 January 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail. The certified mail reflects it was returned to sender on 17 February 2017. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 12 February 2017, reflects a counseling for failing to attend BTA on 11 and 12 February 2017. The applicant was unavailable for signature. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 14 February 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from MUTA on 11 February 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) and 12 February 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2), and the next scheduled training assembly was on 11 March 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 14 February 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail and delivered on 22 February 2017. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 12 March 2017, reflects a counseling for failing to attend BTA on 11 and 12 March 2017. The applicant was unavailable for signature. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 12 March 2017, reflects a counseling for initiation of separation for unsatisfactory participation. The applicant was unavailable for signature. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 14 March 2017, reflects the applicant was absent from MUTA on 11 March 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2) and 12 March 2017 (MUTA 1 and 2), and the next scheduled training assembly was on 7 April 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 14 March 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail and received by the applicant on 16 March 2017. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 12 March 2017, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 12 March 2017. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notification of Separation -Chapter 13, dated 15 March 2017, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 2 May 2017. Orders 17-171-00027, dated 20 June 2017, discharged, and reduced the applicant from E-3 to E-1 effective 20 June 2017. h. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant continues to work out and train. 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 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 that 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 that 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) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 12 (previously Chapter 13), provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that 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. (5) Paragraph 12-3, prescribes the service of Soldiers separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as determined under chapter 2, section III, unless an uncharacterized description of service is warranted under paragraph 2–11. 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s AMHRR includes 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 18-122-00034, dated 2 May 2018. 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 contends, in effect, the discharge was for missing several battle assemblies, however, at the time the applicant was tending to the applicant’s sick mother, who was recovering from a mild stroke. There is no evidence in the AMHRR reflecting the applicant ever sought assistance from the chain of command before deciding to be absent from battle assemblies which was the applicant’s place of duty. The applicant requests a change to the characterization of service to rejoin the Army. At the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. AR 601-210, chapter 4, stipulates an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification; thus, the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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 contends, in effect, the discharge was for missing several battle assemblies, however, at the time the applicant was tending to the applicant’s sick mother, who was recovering from a mild stroke. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support the contention. Therefore, the Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. 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 to all the evidence, the Board found insufficient evidence of an in-service behavioral health condition that would mitigate or excuse the applicant’s unsatisfactory participating. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding missing battle assemblies to care for the applicant’s mother 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 AR20200008839 1