1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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, mental health conditions made it difficult for the applicant to focus and could not understand the inability to control certain functions of the mind, and felt cloudy throughout the day. On numerous occasions, the applicant had confrontations with the drill sergeants. The applicant informed the family of the applicant’s mental state and voiced concerns through the drill sergeants to the company commander. The applicant was never given the opportunity to visit mental health professionals. The applicant completed basic training and arrived at advanced individual training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 68B. The applicant’s mental health condition continued, and the applicant was unable to focus or control the emotions in training or in the personal life. There were multiple conversations with drill sergeants because of the applicant’s conduct. The applicant continued to relay the applicant’s decline to the family, including Major (MAJ) W. B., the applicant’s parent. MAJ W. B. also had conversations with the company commander, hoping the applicant would receive mental health treatment. The applicant received treatment, but continued to fail in training, although the applicant had an intelligence quotient (IQ) higher than most people and excelled in physical training. The applicant arrived a Fort Huachuca for MOS 96B, Intelligence Analyst training. The applicant had gone through two commands and failed one course for an inability to focus. The applicant was sent to train in an MOS, which would give the applicant a security clearance. The applicant knew it was a mistake. The pressure to succeed, the applicant’s declining mental health, and the underlining substance abuse problem came at full speed. Soon the applicant would have confrontations with the leadership. MAJ B. spoke with the commander to find the applicant help for the mental health issues, with no results. The applicant received a court-martial for no reason other than to ruin the applicant’s career, shut the applicant up, and ship the applicant home instead of providing the applicant with the help the applicant needed. The applicant was exposed to classified information which should have never been made available to the applicant because of the mental health issues. The applicant dug deep into depression, drugs, and alcohol abuse until Christmas 2013. The applicant’s civilian life has been devastating because no one pointed the applicant in the right direction. The applicant spoke with mental health professionals during the exit evaluation and was informed the applicant had bipolar disorder, the applicant would never hold down a job or have a healthy relationship, would struggle to stay out of trouble, and the substance abuse would continue to get worse if the applicant did not receive treatment for the mental health issues. The applicant directed an email to the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and the applicant’s mental health concerns were treated. Shortly after the letters, the applicant began to receive health care from Tricare and Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). The applicant’s DD Form 214 is empty, incorrect, and needs to be modified to reflect the truth. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 09 November 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 Performance / AR 635-200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 December 2000 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 December 2000 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and / or become a satisfactory Soldier. It is likely that the circumstances forming the basis of separation would continue to recur. The attempts to rehabilitate the applicant had all failed. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 December 2000 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 September 1999 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 year, 3 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, 29 June 2000, for on two occasions, being disrespectful in deportment toward Drill Sergeant S., a noncommissioned officer (26 June 2000). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 7 days. Field Grade Article 15, 23 October 2000, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from DS M., a noncommissioned officer (28 September 2000). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E- 1; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 19 December 2000, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. Eight Developmental Counseling Forms, for but not limited to: Disobeying a lawful order or regulation, Disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO), Disrespecting to an NCO, Lacking motivation, Failing to follow instructions, Being insubordinate, Requesting to be chaptered out of the Army, Displaying inappropriate and unprofessional behavior towards a fellow Soldier, and Being recommended for separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 13. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; two Reports of Medical Examination (enlistment / preseparation); Report of Medical History; General Discharge Certificate; Certificate of Achievement – 300 points of Army Physical Fitness Test. 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-8 prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 “JHJ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and the separation code is “JHJ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635- 5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 13, is “JHJ.” The applicant contends being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and the condition affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of bipolar disorder diagnosis. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 19 December 2000, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command failed to help the applicant with mental health issues. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends receiving a court-martial for no reasons. The applicant did not provide and evidence to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of court-martial proceedings. The applicant contends the military made the applicant a security risk by exposing the applicant to classified documents and hid the applicant’s mental health information to cover failures. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the contention. The applicant contends the DD Form 214, blocks 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank); 4b (Pay Grade); 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized); and 23 (Type of Separation), should be corrected. The applicant’s requested changes to the DD Form 214 do not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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/experiences: None. Additionally, the applicant asserts Bipolar Disorder, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant self-asserts having Bipolar Disorder at the time of military 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 the applicant was not diagnosed in service with any BH conditions and the VA has not service connected any conditions. The applicant self-asserts having Bipolar Disorder at the time of military service, but there is no medical evidence to support this assertion as the applicant did not submit any medical documentation for review. Additionally, a VA provider documented that the applicant’s reported symptom history was not consistent with his assertion of having Bipolar Disorder at the time of service. Therefore, there is no medical mitigation for the Unsatisfactory Performance that led to the applicant’s discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB’s application applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s self-asserted Bipolar Disorder outweighed the basis for the applicant’s separation for misconduct - Unsatisfactory Performance (rehabilitation failure, being disrespectful to a NCO, willfully disobeying a lawful order, lacking of motivation, failure to follow instructions, insubordination, and inappropriate and unprofessional behavior towards other Soldiers) - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, narrative reason and SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determine that despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s self-asserted Bipolar Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the misconduct - Unsatisfactory Performance (rehabilitation failure, being disrespectful to a NCO, willfully disobeying a lawful order, lacking of motivation, failure to follow instructions, insubordination, and inappropriate and unprofessional behavior towards other Soldiers) diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. Thus, the applicant’s current discharge, narrative reason and SPD code was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and the condition affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and the applicant’s assertion of in service Bipolar Disorder, however during a review of the applicant’s medical record by the board medical advisor found that the applicant did not have an in-service diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support this contention. A matter of fact the applicant AMHRR shows that the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 19 December 2000, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and differentiate between right and wrong. (3) The applicant contends the command failed to help the applicant with mental health issues. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and the applicant’s assertion and after a thorough review of the applicant’s AMHRR the board did not find any evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (4) The applicant contends receiving a court-martial for no reasons. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and the applicant’s assertion and after a review of the applicant’s AMHRR the board found that it is void of court-martial proceeding and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support this contention. (5) The applicant contends the military made the applicant a security risk by exposing the applicant to classified documents and hid the applicant’s mental health information to cover failures. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and did not find any documentation in the applicant’s military file and the applicant did not provide any evidence to support the contention. (6) The applicant contends the DD Form 214, blocks 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank); 4b (Pay Grade); 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized); and 23 (Type of Separation), should be corrected. The applicant’s requested changes to the DD Form 214 do not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, because there is no medical evidence to support this assertion as the applicant did not submit any medical documentation for review. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. 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, 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 AR20210001461 1