1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant, through counsel, requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant’s first duty station was Fort Bragg and while there, the fiancé broke the applicant’s heart. The applicant did not handle the breakup well and became depressed. Based on a statement made by the applicant to one of the fellow Soldiers, the command believed the applicant intended to hurt oneself. The applicant’s personal weapon was found in the vehicle. While the circumstances looked like it, the applicant never intended on hurting oneself. The applicant was just a young, confused person who had a lapse in judgment. The applicant has since learned at the time of the lapse in judgment, the applicant had an anxiety and mood disorder, which had gone, undiagnosed. If the applicant had the necessary medication at the time they faced this difficult time in their life, the reaction would have been much different. The applicant caused the command to be concerned, which led to a quick separation. The applicant does not blame the command; however, they could have reacted much differently. The command could have retained the applicant and allowed the applicant to get a thorough mental examination, counseling, and treatment. The command could have also looked past this one lapse in judgment. If nothing else, the command could have given the applicant an honorable discharge. The applicant deserved it and had been a superb Soldier up until the applicant became temporarily depressed. The applicant did not have any of the conditions stated in chapter 5-17. Despite the command should not have separated the applicant under this chapter, they chose to do so. It is also unclear why the command gave the applicant a general (under honorable conditions) instead of an honorable discharge. The company commander initiated the separation action in 2003 and informed the applicant they would recommend the applicant receive an honorable discharge. The applicant signed a document allowing for an expedited separation with no letter of support. It was the applicant’s understanding the command would look favorably upon the applicant for signing such a document. For some unknown reason the battalion commander separated the applicant with a general (under honorable conditions). The applicant is currently being treated for bipolar disorder and anxiety and takes medication to help cope; and the doctor states the applicant is stable and the prognosis is good. The applicant is engaged to be married and desires to go back to school and have a more successful future. An upgrade will allow the applicant to be a more productive citizen in society. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 28 July 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 June 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant’s inability to conform to being a Soldier. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 June 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 July 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y1P, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for making suicidal threats; removing privately owned weapon without permission; and not being at the appointed place of duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affair letter, dated 4 February 2016, reflects the applicant has been under care since 10 July 2014 and diagnosed with Bipolar D/O and prescribed medication. The applicant was responding to the medication and is stable and compliant with the medication. (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Health Evaluation, dated 9 May 2003, 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 with depressed mood. It was noted this Soldier does not have a mental disorder; however, the Soldier’s present state of emotional and /or behavioral dysfunction is of such severity the Soldier’s ability to perform military duties is significantly impaired. This condition meets the criteria set forth in AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17 for administrative separation. Command is advised to consider this action to be in the best interest of the Soldier, as well as the unit. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney brief; DD Form 214; Mental Health Evaluation; AR 635-200; separation documents; two third-party letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is engaged to be married and is an outstanding person who is positively impacting those around. 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) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (4) Paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (5) Paragraph 5-14 (previously paragraph 5-17) specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. 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 “JFV” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-14 (previously Chapter 5-17), Condition, Not a Disability. 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 a narrative reason change. 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 changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions, at the time, of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Condition, Not a Disability,” and the separation code is “JFV.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly 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. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends not having any of the conditions listed under chapter 5-17 and that it was common for commands to separate Soldier’s under this catch all mental chapter. The record shows the applicant underwent a Mental Health Evaluation, on 9 May 2003, which indicates 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 with depressed mood. It was noted this Soldier does not have a mental disorder; however, the Soldier’s present state of emotional and/or behavioral dysfunction is of such severity the Soldier’s ability to perform military duties is significantly impaired. This condition meets the criteria set forth in AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17 for administrative separation. Command is advised to consider this action to be in the best interest of the Soldier, as well as the unit. The mental health evaluation was considered by the separation authority. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It was written by the applicant’s fiancé and recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. The applicant is engaged to be married and is an outstanding person who is positively impacting those around. 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 applicant was not discharged for misconduct, rather, the discharge was based on the applicant’s inability to conform to being a Soldier and an adjustment disorder. Therefore, there was no mitigation based on applicant’s medical conditions. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly separated under the provisions, at the time, of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200 with characterization of service previously upgraded to honorable. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Condition, Not a Disability,” and the separation code is “JFV.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, and no other narrative reason is appropriate. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge with a narrative reason Condition, Not a Disability from a prior ARBA Board. Therefore, further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge with a narrative reason Condition, Not a Disability from a prior ARBA Board. Therefore, further relief was not warranted. (4) The applicant contends not having any of the conditions listed under chapter 5-17 and it was common for commands to separate Soldier’s under this catch-all mental chapter. The Board considered this contention as well as the Medical Advisor opine and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the separation authority, and, that since the applicant already holds an narrative reason Condition, Not a Disability from a prior ARBA Board. Therefore, further relief was not warranted. (5) 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. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (7) The applicant is engaged to be married and is an outstanding person who is positively impacting those around. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge with a narrative reason Condition, Not a Disability from a prior ARBA Board. Therefore, further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, 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 AR20210001945 1