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, missing out on excellent job opportunities because some employers do not see a general discharge as acceptable. After many counseling sessions with behavioral health and medications to help the applicant, the applicant’s depression, anxiety/sleep problems led the applicant to being discharged from the military. The applicant is a third generation in the family to serve the country proudly. Unforeseen health issues caused the applicant to seem like an unfit service member. The tardiness, missed formations, and incomplete work were all caused by the applicant’s diagnosis, which the applicant finally received in 2012. The beginning until the end of the applicant’s military service was flawless. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 March 2023, and by a 3-2 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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to report to the appointed place of duty on divers occasions and disobeyed a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 20 September 2012, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 October 2012 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 January 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / High School Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91D10, Power-Generation Equipment / 2 years, 9 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard reflects the applicant failed record APFTs on 27 January and 15 March 2012. Memorandum for Record, dated 17 April 2012, reflects the applicant did not show up for APFT on 16 April 2012. This was the applicant’s first diagnostic test after the APFT failure on 15 March 2012. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 June 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. CG Article 15, dated 26 July 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 16 and 24 April 2012, and 3, 4, and 22 May 2012; and, disobeying a lawful order from a NCO on or about 7 May 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $389 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Rated Disabilities Document, undated, reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected for anxiety disorder with depressive disorder and insomnia (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; Rated Disabilities Document; ARBA Letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends 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 applicant contends undiagnosed depression, anxiety and sleep problems led to the applicant being discharged. The applicant was diagnosed in 2012. The applicant provided a copy of Rated Disabilities Document, undated, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected for anxiety disorder with depressive disorder and insomnia. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 June 2012, the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 diagnosis: Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Insomnia. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. There are no diagnoses in-service and the VA has backdated service connection to 2 years post-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is no indication in the medical records that the applicant’s diagnoses contributed to the misconduct. This is supported by a 10% service connection for Anxiety Disorder reflecting subjective report of symptoms with minimal and/or sporadic presentation and not considered present until 2 years’ post-discharge with final rating of 50%. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Insomnia outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failures to report and disobedience – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends undiagnosed depression, anxiety and sleep problems led to the applicant being discharged and was diagnosed in 2012. See paragraph 9.a of this document.There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s Panic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Insomnia and service-connection for Anxiety Disorder reflecting subjective report of symptoms with minimal and/or sporadic presentation and not considered present until 2 years’ post-discharge with final rating of 50%. There is no indication of treatment in-service nor evidence to support the applicant’s claim of behavior being affected. There was lots of minor misconduct, with 10 counseling statements, the command gave the applicant numerous changes to correct behavior and the discharge is deemed proper and equitable. (2) 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. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the lengthy list of minor misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation and drained a lot of command’s time on addressing the applicant’s misconduct. 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Insomnia did not excuse or mitigate the list of minor offenses and the GD the applicant received is proper and equitable for the number and frequency misconduct. 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 since there is detailed evidence supporting the Minor Infractions, 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 AR20210002028 1