1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 February 2020 b. Date Received: 13 February 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 believes was not given a fair chance to learn and correct the misgivings of the unit. The company commander told the applicant they were not worth the time and effort in fixing. The applicant needed help with personal life as well as professional standards, yet the squad leader just wanted the applicant out of their responsibility so the squad leader could focus on making the next rank. The applicant believes one should not be held back because of their own inability to adapt, rather than a “pattern of misconduct.” Unfortunately, having a general (under honorable conditions) discharge prevents the applicant from continuing the chosen career of aviation in the civilian field. The applicant believes changing the DD Form 214 to honorable would allow the applicant to continue to grow and mature as a civilian aviation worker. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 March 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: 6 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 9 October 2015, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for signing an official record the DA Form 2823 by wrongfully providing false information regarding events which took place on 11 September 2015, and made false official statements to CPT N. regarding those same events; On 20 August 2015, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to obey a lawful order from CPT N. to not contact A. C.; On 19 May 2015, the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to obey a lawful order, Policy Letter #9, paragraph 5c (1), dated 2 May 2014, and for consuming alcohol while being under the age of 21; On 25 August 2015 and 17 June 2015, the applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty; On 26 August 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order from SFC R. to not drive a vehicle because the applicant did not have a valid driver’s license and failed to obey a lawful general regulation, Joint Base Lewis-McChord Regulation 201-1; On 6 August 2015, the applicant was observed attempting to destroy a water tower property of the US Government; On 14 August 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful no contact ordered dated 11 July 2015; On 16 June 2015, the applicant left the appointed place of duty and failed to obey a lawful general regulation, Army Regulation 670-1 by wearing a non-serviceable uniform; On 25 June 2015, the applicant was derelict in duty by failing to maintain sensitive items; On 8 July 2015, the applicant failed to uniform inspection by not having all the ribbons; On 26 April 2015, you failed to obey a lawful general order by consuming alcohol while being under the age of 21; On 14 April 2015, the applicant went from the appointed place of duty, GANG Operations class before being released; and, On 19 March 2015, the applicant failed to report to morning formation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 October 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 129 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 15T10, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer / 2 years, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report – 2nd Corrected Final – 01395-2015-MPCo16-051156-3R7, reflects on 26 April 2015, at 2350 hrs, JBLM Police were notified by JBECC of a disorderly Soldier at the above location. Investigation revealed the applicant had fallen asleep in the bathtub with the water running causing the bathtub to overflow into the hallway. Upon contact with the applicant an odor of alcohol was detected emanating from the applicant’s person. The applicant voluntarily consented to a PBT with the results of .085. Further investigation revealed the applicant was 19 years old, which is under the legal age to consume alcohol. The applicant was processed on scene and released to the unit on a DD Form 2708. The Commander’s Report, undated, reflects the applicant received: Company Grade Article 15. Imposed on 19 May 2015, for violating Article 92, failing to obey a lawful general regulation and violating Article 1134, wrongfully consuming alcohol while being under the legal age of 21. Soldier was reduced to E-2 and was restricted for 14 days. Company Grade Article 15. Imposed on 20 August 2015, for violating Article 92, failing to obey a lawful general order. Soldier was reduced to E-1, forfeited $360 pay, which was suspended, and given 14 days extra duty. Company Grade Article 15. Imposed on 9 October 2015, Soldier was found guilty of violating three specifications of Article 107, signing an official record and making two false official statements. Soldier forfeited $360 pay and was restricted for 14 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 September 2015, 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 PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. A records review and interview indicate the Soldier is currently in treatment with ASAP to address a substance disorder. 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 Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends not being given a fair chance to learn and correct the misgivings by the unit. The company commander told the applicant the applicant was not worth the time and effort of fixing. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command did not help the applicant with the personal life as well as the professional standards. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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): (1) The applicant contends not being given a fair chance to learn and correct the misgivings by the unit. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s 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. By the lengthy and detailed list of misconduct as outline above in paragraph 3c(2), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation and the applicant was given numerous chances to adapt to military life as appropriate. (2) The applicant contends the command did not help the applicant with the personal life as well as the professional standards. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with personal and professional issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged and there is no evidence other than the applicant’s claim that the command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of an impropriety or inequity in the discharge process. 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. (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 AR20200010187 1