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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being wrongfully accused of having bad conduct at the time of separation from the Army. There was an incident where the applicant did not cover the shift for Fire Guard due to miscommunication; however, was not disrespectful to any of the drill sergeants or staff. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 June 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 27 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Displayed a lack of motivation, self-discipline and continued unsatisfactory performance and should not remain in the military; Became a training distracter and continued to be a drain on the unit; Refused to train mandatory training needed to graduate BCT; The applicant has stated they want to quit; Failed to adapt to military standards; and, CBHS recommended the applicant be separated from the Army IAW Chapter 11, AR 635-200. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 6 October 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 October 2011 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 September 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / some college / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 month, 9 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: CG Article 15, dated 6 October 2011, for disobeying many lawful orders given by a non commissioned officer; and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for failure to wake up for Fire Guard; failure to follow instructions; violation of Army Value Duty; missed training; violation of the basic obligations/duties required of each Soldier; lack of discipline; disregard for all the Army Core Values; referral to community mental health service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 October 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder w/Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DA Form 4856. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is enrolled in school and is employed full time at an Amazon Fulfillment Center. 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) Paragraph 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (5) Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). (6) Paragraph 11-3a (2) stipulates the policy applies to Soldiers who are in entry-level status, undergoing IET, and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous AD or IADT or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option. (See the glossary for precise definition of entry-level status.) (7) Paragraph 11-8, stipulates service will be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter. (8) Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 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 “JGA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry-level performance and conduct. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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. An honorable discharge (HD) may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. An HD is rarely ever granted. The applicant contends being wrongfully accused of having bad conduct. The applicant did not cover their shift for Fire Guard due to miscommunication. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The applicant realizes they should have stayed and toughed it out; however, lacked the disciple and patience to tough it out. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant is enrolled in school and is employed full time at an Amazon Fulfillment Center. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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, 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: adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which is not typically considered a potentially mitigating condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder on while on active duty; such diagnoses are not typically considered potentially mitigating conditions. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which is not typically considered a mitigating condition unless records indicate a level of severity to be considered. Records do not suggest that in applicant's case adjustment symptoms rose to such a level as to be considered a potentially mitigating condition. This diagnosis appears to be associated with poor adaptation to the Army, lack of motivation to train, and desire to return home. There is no evidence to support psychiatric mitigation of the issues leading to separation via Chapter 11. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being wrongfully accused of having bad conduct. The applicant did not cover their shift for Fire Guard duty due to miscommunication. The Board considered this contention and noted the applicant’s conduct which constituted the basis for separation, lack of motivation, training distracter, refusal to train, stated desire to quit, and failure to adapt to military standards, and determined there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. The applicant’s assertion did not outweigh the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The applicant realizes they should have stayed and toughed it out; however, lacked the disciple and patience to tough it out. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s contention does outweigh the basis for separation. (3) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (4) The applicant is enrolled in school and is employed full time at an Amazon Fulfillment Center. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct do not outweigh the nature of the applicant’s basis for separation. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider. As the applicant was discharged for Entry Level Performance and Conduct based on the applicant’s lack of motivation, training distracter, refusal to train, stated desire to quit, and failure to adapt to military standards, the current Uncharacterized characterization of service is proper and equitable. The applicant’s service was not long enough to be properly assessed. A general discharge under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant’s overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for a character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 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 AR20210001780 1