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: 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, the applicant admits shortcomings and failure to seek help and guidance from leadership, but had no leadership or battle buddy to confide in. The unit was preparing for mobilization and the applicant was not required because of the military occupational specialty (MOS). Prior to the mobilization, the applicant attempted to leave the Reserves for the Active Duty component, but in both instances was either ignored or told the former S1 would not proceed. The 320th Military Police Company sent the applicant a memorandum through the mail indicating separation under Army Regulation 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance - Missed Annual Training. The applicant provided documentation in the form of a Certificate of Achievement (COA) showing the applicant was present. The unit failed to assign and Reentry Code (RE) to the discharge, which prevented the applicant from reenlisting into the Armed Forces on 17 October 2018, exactly six months after separation. The applicant made mistakes, but continues to pay for them. The applicant seeks to prove the ability to serve and dedicate life to the country. The applicant understands the Army Review Boards Agency is not an investigative body and provides documentation to support diagnosed Anxiety, Depression, and treatment for ADHD, although providing the documents may disqualify the applicant for reenlistment. The documents reflect the applicant reached out to the Adjutant General, U.S. Senate for the state, and the Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Sergeant M.O. In a records review conducted on 28 April 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 / NA / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 April 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant provided Memorandum, subject: Separation Under AR 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation - Missed Annual Training, dated 6 December 2017, reflecting separation was initiated for the following reason: The applicant missed annual training. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 April 2014 / 5 years, 9 months, 14 days b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10, Chemical Equipment Specialist / 6 years, 2 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 8 February 2012 - 19 March 2014 / GD IADT, 19 March 2012 - 17 August 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) USARCG, 20 March 2014 - 24 April 2014 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Certificate of Achievement, undated, reflecting dedication to duty and professionalism while supporting the 382nd Military Police Battalion on FY16 WAREX, 6 to 23 July 2016. Headquarters, 81st Readiness Division, Fort Jackson, SC, Orders 18-100-00026, dated 10 April 2018, reflect the applicant was discharged under Army Regulation 135-178, from the U.S. Army Reserve on 17 April 2018, with a general (under honorable conditions). The applicant provided several medical documents, which reflect the applicant reached out to the Homeless and Suicide Prevention centers, prescribed various medications, and was administered several medical tests, but the documents do not indicate a mental health diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; service documents; two ARBA letters; Congressional documents regarding 2014 ARNG separation; college transcript; medical records. 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 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 3-23 (Section IV), states, if separation proceedings under this chapter have been initiated against a Soldier confined by civil authorities, the case may be processed in the absence of the respondent. (4) 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. (5) 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 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 provided Memorandum, subject: Separation Under AR 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation - Missed Annual Training [Applicant], dated 6 December 2017, reflecting separation was initiated against the applicant for missing annual training. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 18-100-00026, dated 10 April 2018. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends being diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, and treatment for ADHD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a diagnosis of Anxiety, Depression, and ADHD. The applicant provided medical documents which reflect several medical tests and prescriptions for various medications, but the documents did not indicate a mental health diagnosis. The AMHR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends attempting to leave the Reserves for the Active Duty component, but in both instances was either ignored or told the former S-1 would not proceed. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends a COA shows the applicant was present for the annual training, which was basis for the separation. The applicant provided a COA reflecting the applicant supported an exercise from 6 to 13 July 2016, but the initiation for separation did not provide specific dates for the annual training, which was the basis for separation. The applicant contends the unit failed to assign an RE Code to the discharge, which prevented the applicant from reenlisting in the Armed Forces. 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. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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. Applicant asserts an in-service history of anxiety, depression, and ADHD that may mitigate the basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant asserts an in-service history of anxiety, depression, and ADHD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, determined the applicant's asserted medical conditions do not mitigate the missed annual training that was the Board accepted basis of separation because the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that applicant's conditions have a nexus to the applicant's missed annual training. Avoidance is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with any of these conditions, and without any nexus, these conditions do not mitigate the applicant's missed annual training. (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 any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the Board accepted basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, and treatment for ADHD. The Board liberally considered this contention but concluded that applicant's asserted Anxiety, Depression, and ADHD do not outweigh the Board accepted basis of separation. (2) The applicant contends attempting to leave the Reserves for the Active Duty component, but in both instances was either ignored or told the former S-1 would not proceed. The Board considered this contention, but the AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, and therefore this contention did not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge. (3) The applicant contends a COA shows the applicant was present for the annual training, which was basis for the separation. The Board considered this contention, but concluded that this COA that was not linked to the dates of the missed annual training was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of government regularity. (4) The applicant contends the unit failed to assign an RE Code to the discharge, which prevented the applicant from reenlisting in the Armed Forces. As the applicant was in the Army Reserves, there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. 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 contentions 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 self- asserted anxiety, depression, or ADHD did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of missing annual training which the Board accepted as the basis of separation, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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, 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 COA - Certificate of Achievement 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 AR20210003070 1