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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because leadership did not properly do their job in processing the applicant’s security clearance in a timely manner. The applicant enlisted for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 13R; but before graduating from basic training (BT), was asked to pick another MOS. The applicant selected the MOS of medical clerk, but once the applicant reported for training, the MOS was a different one. The applicant did not select this MOS, as the drill sergeant had misled the applicant to believe it was a medical clerk MOS. The applicant did not know this MOS had a high failure rate. The applicant was later discharged for unsatisfactory performance, but the narrative reason for discharge will not allow reenlistment. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 13 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to obey a lawful order from a non-commissioned officer, failed to go to appointed place of duty on three separate occasions and violated unit policy by wrongfully possessing a cellular phone during Period of Instruction (POI) time on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 January 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 February 2015 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 June 2014 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 8 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceeding Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 19 September 2014, for failing to obey a lawful order on 9 and 16 September 2014, by wrongfully possessing cellular phone during POI time. The punishment consisted of 7 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 13 January 2015, for failing to obey a lawful order from a non- commissioned officer (9 January 2015); failing to go to appointed place of duty (7 November and 1 December 2014). The punishment consisted forfeiture of $360 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 January 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, Primary Insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; congressional letter; self-authored statement. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (5) Paragraph 13-8, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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 “JHJ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and the separation code is “JHJ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 the discharge was inequitable because the leadership did not properly do their job in processing the applicant’s security clearance in a timely manner and was misled by leadership regarding the MOS change. The applicant provided no evidence, other than the statement, to support the contention of inequity. The Army Military Human Resource Record (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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and occupational Problems. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and occupational problems existed during military 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 the applicant does not have any mitigating diagnosis for his unsatisfactory Performance. Failing to obey a lawful order from a non-commissioned officer, failing to go to appointed place of duty on three separate occasions and violating unit policy by wrongfully possessing a cellular phone during Period of Instruction (POI) time on two separate occasions are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with the applicant’s BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and occupational problems outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – failing to obey a lawful order from a non- commissioned officer, failing to go to appointed place of duty on three separate occasions and violating unit policy by wrongfully possessing a cellular phone during Period of Instruction (POI) time on two separate occasions. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that a change in narrative reason is not warranted with the available evidence. The applicant’s performance was unsatisfactory; thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged for the same. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because the leadership did not properly do their job in processing the applicant’s security clearance in a timely manner and was misled by leadership regarding the MOS change. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. The applicant’s unsatisfactory performance was failure to follow orders and failure to go to his appointed place of duty; this is not unsatisfactory performance related to MOS. The needs of the Army changes frequently and performing satisfactorily is expected of all military members. 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 ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and occupational problems did not excuse or mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation – failing to obey a lawful order from a non- commissioned officer, failing to go to appointed place of duty on three separate occasions and violating unit policy by wrongfully possessing a cellular phone during Period of Instruction (POI) time on two separate occasions. 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 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 AR20210002581 1