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, being forced to move from their duty station to Florida due to a medical condition and financial hardship. The applicant contends notifying the command on the plans to move and states being wrongfully discharged for nonparticipation. The applicant was unemployed, unable to pay rent, and was being evicted from their place of residence. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 22 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Self-asserted PTSD partially outweighing the applicant's basis of separation - numerous AWOLs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, Secretarial Authority, with the corresponding separation code, JFF, and no change to the RE Code. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Participation / NGR 600- 200, Paragraph 6-35j / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Nine or more AWOLs during a 12-month period and medical non­compliance. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 July 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / High School Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 5 years, 10 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 31 July 2008 - 6 October 2008 / NA IADT, 7 October 2008 - 16 July 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report of Separation under AR 135-178 Chapter 13, dated 16 October 2013, reflects a notification of intent to discharge was sent on 20 September 2013; a Letter of Instruction for unexcused absence was sent on 13 July, 13 August, and 20 September 2013. Affidavit of Service of Mail, dated 11 February 2014, indicates a Notification of Separation, Election of Rights, Reduction letter and AWOL Letter. A true copy of which were sent certified mail, restricted delivery, and requested return receipt to the applicant's last known address. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Physical Profile, dated 24 January 2013, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: PULHES 11113 for OBH. The applicant either will need a reevaluation by Military Behavioral Health Officer, or notes from a civilian provider concerning the diagnosis as well as progress, treatment, and limitations. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online Application; self-authored letter; NGB Form 22; Orders 182-072; Orders 183-028. 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct 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 135-91 states a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in - the Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. e. Army Regulation 135-178 prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) Paragraph 2-9a prescribes an honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (2) Paragraph 2-9b, prescribes, if a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. (3) Paragraph 2-9c, prescribes the service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and under other circumstances. (4) Chapter 3-23 (Section IV), states, if separation proceedings under this chapter have been initiated against a Soldier confined by civil authorities, the case may be processed in the absence of the respondent. (5) Chapter 12 (previously Chapter 13), in affect at the time, provides in pertinent part, individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because: The Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91, chapter 4; Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence. (6) Paragraph 12-3, Characterization of service normally will be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines in chapter 2, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. (7) Chapter 13, provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. f. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: Classification and Reclassification; Personnel Management; Assignment and Transfer, including interstate transfer; Special Duty Assignment Pay; Enlisted Separations; and Command Sergeant Major Program. (1) Chapter 6 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. (2) Paragraph 6-25, prescribes the discharge of Soldiers on active duty, (Title 10, USC) in AGR, IET, ADT, and ADOS status, as well as those ordered to active duty for contingency operations or under mobilization conditions, is governed by AR 635-200. All Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) training, including AT is conducted in Title 10 ADT status. Refer to AR 135-178 when considering enlisted Soldiers not on active duty and those on full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) under Title 32 USC for discharge from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army. (3) Paragraph 6-35j defers to AR 135-178, chapter 12 for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders may recommend retention of Soldiers who have accrued 9 or more unexcused absences within a one-year period. Submit requests with justification for retention to the State MPMO/G1. Include verification the notification requirements of AR 135-91 and paragraph 6-32 have been met. RE 3. 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) includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's NGB Form 22, indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35j, by reason of Unsatisfactory Participation, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Based on the applicant's AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's NGB Form 22, block 24, Character of Service as "General (Under Honorable Conditions)." The applicant's AMHRR confirms the separation authority approved the applicant's separation with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant provided a Physical Profile, dated 24 January 2013, which reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: PULHES 11113 for OBH. The applicant either would need a reevaluation by Military Behavioral Health Officer, or notes from a civilian provider concerning the diagnosis as well as progress, treatment, and limitations. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends notifying the command on the plans to move to Florida and was wrongfully discharged for nonparticipation. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. 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's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: Adjustment - Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, 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 was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment-Disorder and self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is evidence of potentially mitigating BH conditions. The applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment-Disorder and self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service. While not formally diagnosed in service with PTSD, the active-duty medical record supports applicant's self-asserted PTSD due to a history of interpersonal violence (IPV) that appears to have been exacerbated by two in-service incidents. As such, applicant's asserted PTSD is determined to be a mitigating condition that provides partial mitigation for the basis of separation. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant's asserted PTSD mitigates the AWOLs. Applicant's medical noncompliance is not mitigated by her asserted PTSD or an Adjustment- Disorder due to no natural sequela. There is no evidence that either of these conditions contributed to her medical noncompliance. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's Adjustment -Disorder and history of interpersonal violence outweighed the applicant's basis for separation - multiple AWOLs. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant's asserted PTSD mitigated the AWOLs. The determined that the applicant's medical noncompliance is not mitigated by the asserted PTSD or an Adjustment-Disorder due to no natural sequela and there is no evidence that either of these conditions contributed to the applicant's medical noncompliance. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to applicant's was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment-Disorder and self-asserts PTSD at the time of military service outweighing the partially mitigated misconduct that was the basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends notified command on the plans to move to Florida and wrongfully discharged for nonparticipation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the information detailed in paragraphs 9a (3-4) and 9b (1). c. The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Adjustment-Disorder, self-asserts PTSD and history of interpersonal violence (IPV) experiences partially outweighing the applicant's Unsatisfactory Participation- for multiple AWOLs. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because of the partial mitigation as detailed in paragraphs9a (3-4) and 9b (1). Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's reason for discharge and accompanying SPD code to Secretarial Authority, JFF, because of the partial mitigation as detailed in paragraphs9a (3-4) and 9b (1). Thus, the prior narrative reason is no longer appropriate. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Secretarial Authority, JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 15 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 AR20210001908 1