1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 August 2020 b. Date Received: 14 August 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 condition). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while serving in the military the applicant’s mental health issue became intrusive and the applicant was not able to function properly. When the applicant reached out to pursue counseling, the applicant had been discharged without being informed. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 August 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 / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35j / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 July 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 December 2016 / 8 years (ARNG) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 30 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 August 2017 – 26 January 2018 / HD (Concurrent Service) IADT e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A search of the Army criminal file indexes revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A VA Disability Rating, dated 9 June 2002, reflects the applicant was granted service connection for borderline personality disorder (claimed as PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety condition, Sleep Disturbances, Psychosis from personal trauma granted with an evaluation of 70 percent, effective 3 February 2020. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293-2, VA Disability Rating, 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. 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 Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135- 178, chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation. e. Army Regulation 135-178 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (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) Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation. (4) Paragraph 13-1a (1), prescribes a 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. (5) Paragraph 13-3 states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be 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 narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMRR) is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant’s record does contain Orders 212-010, dated 1 August 2019, which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35j, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 6-35j, NGR 600-200, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by NGR 600-200, for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unsatisfactory Participation.” Governing regulations stipulate no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends while serving in the military the applicant’s mental health issue became intrusive and the applicant was not able to function properly. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides a VA Disability Rating, dated 9 June 2002, which reflects the applicant was granted service connection for borderline personality disorder (claimed as PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety condition, Sleep Disturbances, Psychosis from personal trauma granted with an evaluation of 70 percent, effective 3 February 2020. The applicant contends the applicant was discharged without being informed. The applicant’s contentions were noted but it is unknown if the contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. 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 diagnoses: Service connected for Borderline Personality Disorder, listed as Atypical Psychosis. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts mental health 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 although the VA is service connecting the applicant for a Personality Disorder, this is a condition that originates in adolescence and fluctuates with psychosocial stressors. It is not service incurred or aggravated as by nature of the condition, any stressors or disagreement with the applicant’s stance or behaviors would result in misconduct; military or not military. Accordingly, the applicant was just responding as anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder would irrespective of service. While liberal consideration was applied, the basis for separation is not mitigated. Regardless of service connection and significant disagreement, a Personality Disorder does not render the applicant unable to know right from wrong, understand consequences, and make conscious choices. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends while serving in the military the applicant’s mental health issue became intrusive and the applicant was not able to function properly. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s Borderline Personality Disorder, listed as Atypical Psychosis does not mitigate the applicant’s missed drills and refusal to enter the IRR as the Army affords many avenues to Soldiers including seeking separation for hardship (2) The applicant contends the applicant was discharged without being informed. The Board considered this contention and found the current discharge appropriate based on non-BH mitigation of missed drills and refusal to enter the IRR. Furthermore, the applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) 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 Borderline Personality Disorder, listed as Atypical Psychosis did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of missing drills and refusal to enter the IRR. 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, as 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 AR20200009064 1