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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge received is inconsistent with discharge policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The applicant was separated because of failing to adapt to the military life. The applicant was struggling with severe anxiety and informed the chain of command. The applicant continued to drill with the unit and never displayed any conduct which was unbecoming. The under other than honorable discharge is reserved for Soldiers who exhibit bad conduct or committed criminal offenses and the applicant had done neither. The current discharge is causing unnecessary hardship and difficulty with finding employment. In December 2016, the applicant completed a bachelor’s degree, graduated cum laude and was on the dean’s list for three consecutive quarters. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 August 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (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: 2 April 2010 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 91J10, Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repair / 4 years, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 2 April 2010 – 1 August 2010 / NA IADT, 2 August 2010 – 9 February 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders Number 14-113-00076, dated 23 April 2014, reflect the applicant was reduced from E-2 to E-1 effective 15 April 2014 and discharge from the USAR on 28 April 2014 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; college transcript; two letters of recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant completed a bachelor’s degree, graduated cum laude and was on the dean’s list for three consecutive quarters. 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 sets forth 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 and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 14-113-00076, dated 23 April 2014. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends struggling with a severe anxiety and informed the chain of command. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of Behavior Health diagnosis. 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 is void of a mental status evaluation. 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 statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The authors of the statement recognize the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. The applicant contends obtaining a bachelor’s degree, graduated cum laude and was on the dean’s list for three consecutive quarters. 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. While the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating behavioral health diagnoses on the applicant, the applicant provided a statement asserting Anxiety Disorder, which could potentially mitigate the applicant’s discharge after applying liberal consideration. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant asserted Anxiety existing during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s Anxiety could mitigate the applicant’s discharge, however, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s 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 Anxiety mitigates the applicant’s discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. While the applicant’s Anxiety could outweigh the applicant’s discharge, the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s Anxiety actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s Anxiety actually outweighs the applicant’s discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends struggling with a severe anxiety and informed the chain of command. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant’s Anxiety could outweigh the applicant’s discharge, the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s Anxiety actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s Anxiety actually outweighs the applicant’s discharge. (2) 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 (3) The applicant contends obtaining a bachelor’s degree, graduated cum laude and was on the dean’s list for three consecutive quarters. The Board considered this contention, including the third-party statements that speak highly of the applicant and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted without knowing the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. c. The Board determined that without any behavior health diagnoses, and without knowledge of the applicant’s basis of separation, 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. Specifically for this case a separation packet including the basis of separation is required, the applicant is encouraged to reapply with this evidence. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration to all the evidence, the Board was unable to determine if the applicant’s Anxiety actually outweighs the applicant’s discharge because the Board Medical Advisor could not provide a medical opine without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge. The Board also considered the applicant’s equity contentions relating to the applicant’s post-service accomplishments and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted without the applicant providing medical documentation and the corroborating evidence regarding the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s basis of separation. The applicant’s 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. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranted for an upgrade to a General Discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as 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 AR20210002540 1