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, while being assigned to Fort Bliss, there were many issues with the unit. In over six years in the military, the applicant never had a problem. The applicant has received many recommendations and letters of character. The applicant was in a bad car accident shortly after being assigned to Fort Bliss and had to go to therapy for the physical and mental issues of what the unit was putting the applicant through. The applicant also had issues with the family care plan and the child’s safety. The applicant received an Article 15 and was reduced two ranks instead of one which the applicant was told was not allowed. The applicant was told to fight it; however, could not do so due to not having a family care plan. The applicant is now stable with the child and would like to go to college and is not able to do so because of the discharge. The applicant made one mistake and not only was kicked out the Army and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and the narrative reason. Others in the command had issues; however, nothing was done to them as it was to the applicant. The applicant was under duress, in therapy and on many medications. The applicant served honorably. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 July 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: 27 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 April 2014 / 365 days Mobilization b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / High School Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 31B30, Military Police / 6 years, 3 months, 30 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 8 September 2003 –11 February 2004 / UNC (Break in Service) RA, 13 April 2008 – 26 September 2009 / HD USAR, 27 September 2009 – 15 February 2010 / NIF ARNG, 16 February 2010 – 27 January 2011 / HD USAR, 28 January 2011 – 21 April 2014 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, AFRM-M g. Performance Ratings: 22 April 2014 – 31 July 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, with a narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Performance. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 2 March 2015, reflects the applicant was flagged for Punishment Phase (HA), effective 12 January 2015, was ineligible for reenlistment due to adverse action (9B). The applicant was reduced from E-6 to E-4 effective 12 January 2015. 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 293; DD Form 214; DD Form 215; NGB Form 22. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is now stable and with the child. 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 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). 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 good service. Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being reduced two grades instead of one by the command. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged or allowed to stay in the Army. The DODI 1332.28 provides each case must be decided on its individual merits, and a case-by-case basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, when an applicant cites a prior decision of the ADRB, another agency, or a court, the applicant shall describe the specific principles and facts contained in the prior decision and explain the relevance of the cited matter to the applicant’s case. The Board is an independent body, not bound by prior decisions in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. 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. The applicant contends being under duress, in therapy and on many medications. 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 AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant is now stable and with the child. 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? 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: Major Depression, PTSD, Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Major Depression, PTSD, and Anxiety. The VA has also service connected her PTSD. (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 has multiple potentially mitigating BH conditions. The applicant was diagnosed in service with Major Depression, PTSD, and Anxiety. The VA has also connected applicant’s PTSD. While there is evidence of multiple BH conditions, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s Major Depression, PTSD, Anxiety actually mitigates the applicant’s discharge because the applicant’s official records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge and the applicant did not provide any evidence of the basis of the applicant’s separation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board Medical Advisor is unable to determine if the applicant’s Major Depression, PTSD, Anxiety mitigates the applicant’s discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Major Depression, PTSD, Anxiety does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis of separation because, without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s BH conditions outweighs the applicant’s discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered the applicant’s contention and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether the applicant’s potentially mitigating Major Depression, PTSD, and Anxiety actually outweigh the basis for separation or warrant an upgrade of the narrative reason for separation. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the record, to include the applicant’s 6 years of service, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted even after considering potentially mitigating factors. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered the totality of the record, and the applicant’s potentially mitigating contention, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted. (4) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered the totality of the record, and the applicant’s potentially mitigating contention, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted. (5) The applicant contends being reduced two grades instead of one by the command. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (6) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged or allowed to stay in the Army. The Board considered the totality of the record, and the applicant’s potentially mitigating contention, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do 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 (8) The applicant contends being under duress, in therapy and on many medications. The Board considered the totality of the record, and the applicant’s potentially mitigating contention, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted. (9) The applicant is now stable and with the child. The Board considered the totality of the record, and the applicant’s potentially mitigating contention, and determined that without knowing the specific facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine whether an upgrade of the discharge is warranted. 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, after applying liberal consideration, the Board determined that the applicant’s Major Depression, PTSD, Anxiety, in addition to the applicant’s potentially mitigating contentions of inequity and impropriety, do not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis of separation because, without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s BH conditions outweighs the applicant’s discharge. (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 AR20210001830 1