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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because of an isolated situation of homelessness. The applicant served honorably, also completing a deployment. The applicant desires to enlist in the Army National Guard. The applicant is currently employed, and in stable housing. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 December 2022, 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 Participation / AR 135- 178, Chapter 13 / NA / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 17 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 8 May 2013, the applicant’s commander mailed the applicant a notification via certified mail, with a suspense of 30 days to acknowledge the notice and rights. Commander’s Report, dated 20 June 2013, reflects the applicant was notified of the proposed separation via certified mail on 8 May 2013. The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was declared an unsatisfactory participant with no future potential in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicant, without any cogent or emergency reasons, received the ninth unexcused absence. The applicant’s decision to miss nine (9) unit training assemblies constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers. The objective of the USAR program is to sustain a well-disciplined, mission capable force ready for mobilization. As deploy-ability is dependent upon Soldiers satisfactorily participating with their units of assignment, the applicant’s failure to do so is incompatible with service in the U.S. Army Reserve training assemblies, which constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers. (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: 8 January 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 April 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 5 years, 8 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 20 May 2008 – 16 October 2008 / UNC (Concurrent Service) AD, 16 January 2009 – 3 February 2010 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 February 2009 – 9 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AAM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, AFRMMD, NATOMDL, AGCM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander’s Report as described in previous paragraph 3c. Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence, dated 14 February 2013, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods:10 February 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2). Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 14 February 2013, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 25 February 2013. Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence, dated 17 April 2013, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 13 April 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) 14 April 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 17 April 2013, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 19 April 2013. Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence, dated 7 May 2013, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 3 May 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) 4 May 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 7 May 2013, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 9 May 2013. Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence, dated 12 June 2013, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 8 June 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) 9 June 2013 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions, dated 12 June 2013, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 13 June 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; four third-party letters; Hawkeye Community Action Program, Inc letter; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment. 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 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 that 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 that 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) Chapter 12 (previously Chapter 13), provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that 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. (4) Paragraph 12-3, prescribes the service of Soldiers separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as determined under chapter 2, section III, unless an uncharacterized description of service is warranted under paragraph 2–11. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because of an isolated situation of homelessness. The evidence of the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on 8 May 2013 and mailed the discharge packet to the last known address via certified mail. The evidence of the record shows the applicant had failed to submit a reply. In accordance with AR 135-178, paragraph 3-12, this failure to submit a reply within 30 days of receipt of the notice constitutes a waiver of the right to respond. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant’s discharge orders do not reflect the reentry code; therefore, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct before and after leaving the Army. The applicant contends obtaining employment. 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: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, there may have been some association between applicant’s PTSD and the unexcused absences that led to the separation. However, the applicant already has an Honorable discharge, and the discharge appears appropriate. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence and considering the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, the Board determined that though the applicant’s unexcused absences are medically mitigated by the applicant’s PTSD, since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge no further relief is warranted. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because of an isolated situation of homelessness. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve however, since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge from a prior ARBA Board, the Board determined further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. As the applicant was discharged from the Army Reserves, there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. (4) The applicant contends obtaining employment. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve however, since the applicant already holds an Honorable discharge from a prior ARBA Board, the Board determined 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. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. 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) As there were no Reasons/SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. 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 AR20210002425 1