1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 21 August 2020 b. Date Received: 19 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, due to a mental health diagnosis the applicant is requesting an upgrade to have access to veteran’s benefits. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 April 2023, and by a 3-2 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, Acts or Pattern of Misconduct / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35i(1) / NA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 October 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: During a random drug test conducted on 24 June 2018, the applicant’s sample was found to be clinically positive for THC 106 and on 8 December 2018, the applicant accrued 9 unsatisfactory participation periods within 12 months. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant waived the right to consult with counsel on 3 October 2018. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived the right to a hearing before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 December 2015 / 8 years (ARNG) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 10 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 February 2016 – 20 June 2016 / HD (IADT) (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, SC-PALM SVC-RBN g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Acton(s) / Evidentiary Record: AGSC Forms 50-1-E (Unexcused Absences) reflects the applicant was absent from the scheduled Unit Training Assembly (UTA) or Multiple Unit Training Assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 12 August 2017 – 13 August 2017 (4 periods) 4 November 2017 – 5 November 2017 (4 periods) 8 December 2017 (1 period) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a Patient Summary, Palmetto Health, dated 17 January 2019, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with psychosis. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Patient Summary, Palmetto Health. 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. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in - the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. e. 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 United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and 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 6-35i (1) defers to AR 135-178, chapter 12, and paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation. f. Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve (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 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, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 12-1b, describes a pattern of misconduct as discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline include conduct which violates the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time- honored customs and traditions of the Army. (6) Paragraph 12-8 states the characterization of service will normally be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines on chapter 2, section III. (7) Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation when it determined that the Soldier is unqualified for further service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders; a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable and verification the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. (8) 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 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 contends due to a mental health diagnosis the applicant is requesting an upgrade to have access to veteran’s benefits. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of mental health diagnosis. The applicant provides a Patient Summary, Palmetto Health, dated 17 January 2019, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with psychosis. 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 diagnosis: the VA has diagnosed Bipolar I, but not service connected. The applicant submitted a sheet with notation of Psychosis to support assertion psychosis was contributory, but with no other information. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant asserts that Psychosis impacted the misconduct. (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 is acknowledged, the evidence available does not support the applicant has a service- connected condition that may have presented in-service influencing the misconduct. Therefore, there is no mitigation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends applicant’s mental health diagnosis warrants a discharge upgrade so that applicant may receive veteran’s benefits. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the evidence available does not support the applicant has a service-connected condition that may have presented in-service influencing the misconduct. Therefore, there is no mitigation under the facts at the current time. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 Psychoses did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of drug abuse and unsatisfactory participation. 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) As there were no Narrative Reason or SPD Codes listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, no upgrade actions are required for these items. (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 AR20200009770 1