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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, since being discharged the applicant has been formally diagnosed with service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by the VA. The applicant’s rating is 70 percent due to the trauma the applicant sustained while working at Guantanamo Bay and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Along with (PTSD) major depression also affected the applicant’s ability to perform at the standards necessary to survive in those imminent danger areas. The applicant’s mental health was apparent to the unit the applicant was hospitalized at Research Psychiatric Center from 26 September 2013 through 23 October 2013 for depressive symptoms. The applicant was treated in the Star unit which addresses symptoms of depression and PTSD. The applicant believes the mental health problems were a direct effect to the reason the applicant’s performance degraded and the reason the applicant was discharged for Unsatisfactory Performance. Before 1 June 2013, the applicant’s performance was up to standards but after June 2013, the applicant could not keep it all together. After June 2013, the disorders changed the applicant’s behavior and caused the applicant to act in a more laissez faire which the applicant would have never acted especially in the type of work environment. The applicant is requesting the Board look at the discharge in a more lenient manner because of service-connected disabilities of PTSD and Major Depression Disorder. According to the 2014 Hagel memo (“Supplemental Guidance to Military BCMRs/BCNRs by Veterans Claiming PTSD”) and the 2016 Carson Memo (“Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military BCMRs/BCNRs by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI”), the disabilities should be considered when making a final decision. The applicant is asking the Decision Review Board to change the narrative reason for separation from Unsatisfactory Performance to Secretarial Authority. The applicant thanks the Board in advance for consideration and hopes the Board can understand the applicant’s situation and how this unjust discharge still affects the applicant today. In a records review conducted on 19 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 31 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For having been counseled multiple times by the leadership for events ranging from failing to obey a lawful regulation (USDB Regulation 190-3), to insubordinate conduct towards an NCO. Specifically, the applicant was counseled on 5 June 2013 because the applicant was caught playing with a Nintendo DS while on duty. On 7 June 2013, the applicant was counseled because the applicant fell asleep while on duty and had struggled the month with accomplishing the daily duties. On 19 July 2013, the applicant was counseled because the applicant had not conducted the inspections, as the applicant was required to do, but had documented the inspections were completed without any events to report. On 25 July 2013, the applicant was counseled because the applicant had failed to complete SSD1, and then lied to an NCO about completing it. On 4 August 2013, the applicant was counseled because the applicant was caught reading a fantasy book. On 25 September 2013, the applicant was counseled because while performing the duties in the dining facilities, the applicant |fist bumped| an inmate. The commander believed the applicant will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and become a satisfactory Solder. The commander furthermore believed this behavior is likely to continue, the applicant’s ability to perform the duties effectively are unlikely and the potential for advancement or leadership is also unlikely. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 December 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 January 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 August 2011 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31E10, Internment/Resettlement Specialist / 2 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Cuba / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander’s Report, dated 26 December 2012, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, dated 20 August 2013; guilty of all specifications. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; extra duty and restriction for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 November 2013, 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: Major Depression, Moderate. The applicant provided a screen shot of the eBenefits dashboard which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with major depression and sleep disturbance effective 1 February 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 3822; eBenefits Screenshot; third-party statement; DD Form 214. 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) 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. (4) Paragraph 13-10, 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. An honorable characterization of service generally is required when the Government initially introduces limited use evidence. 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 current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. 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 an honorable. 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 being diagnosed with 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, with major depression and sleep disturbance by the VA. The applicant provided a screenshot of the eBenefits indicating the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, with major depression and sleep disturbance. The applicant provided a copy of the mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 November 2013, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major Depression, Moderate. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant’s performance. The author states noticing a change in the applicant’s behavior a couple of months after the applicant’s return from Guantanamo Bay. The author notes the applicant was withdrawn and rarely talked to others, the applicant started to stay in the room, and kept saying the applicant had trouble sleeping and always looked tired. 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? N/A. Applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, so there is no medical mitigation required for a characterization upgrade. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed after being diagnosed with 70 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, with major depression and sleep disturbance by the VA. The Board, after applying liberal consideration, concluded that neither the applicant’s PTSD and MDD, nor assertion of sleep disturbance, mitigated or outweighed the applicant’s failure to obey lawful regulations, playing with a Nintendo DS while on duty, falsifying documentation, reading a fantasy book (presumably on duty), and fist bumping an inmate while working in the DFAC and that relief was not warranted since there is clear unsatisfactory performance documented. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant’s current discharge reason 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. 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 (currently Honorable). (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge or the accompanying SPD code since the unmitigated offenses of failure to obey lawful regulations, playing with a Nintendo DS while on duty, falsifying documentation, reading a fantasy book (presumably on duty), and fist bumping an inmate while working in the DFAC warranted an unsatisfactory performance discharge, thus the current narrative reason and SPD code were 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 AR20210003183 1