1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 11 June 2020 b. Date Received: 23 June 2020 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, an upgrade would allow the applicant the opportunity to serve the country. The applicant’s life has been spontaneous. The applicant accepts full responsibility for all of the occurrences which have happened to the applicant and the applicant’s family. The events contributed to the family making drastic decisions. The applicant lost the siblings, grandparents, a parent, a home, job, and a military career. The applicant had a child who was born with a medical condition. The applicant’s life has been so confusing from the age of 19 to 22 years old. It was really difficult to show up for drill, as a part- time Soldier. The family needed the applicant more than ever, especially when drill consisted of no drill. The applicant was expecting to be a Soldier, not a dummy who did nothing on drill but clean the motor pool. The applicant desires to serve on active duty. After the applicant’s parent passed away, the applicant realized the parent was the only certain role model in the applicant’s life and it made the applicant desire to become a better person for oneself and not just for the kids. The applicant requested to be on active duty, but the request was not approved, which made the applicant believe the National Guard was a waste of time. Shortly thereafter, the grandparent passed away when the applicant was 20 years old. The applicant was living with the grandparent and taking care of the grandparent. The grandparent had a child who seized the home from the applicant, spouse, and children. Showing up for Drill was not the most important issue for the applicant and the applicant’s family. The applicant was advised by a sergeant in the applicant’s unit the transfer to active duty would be easier if the applicant was separated from the service instead of waiting for the state. The applicant and the family packed up and moved to Georgia, where more events took place. The applicant’s child was born with a health condition, which eventually made the family move back to North Carolina. The applicant tried to transfer to active duty but was placed in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). The applicant was never truly processed at the Reserve station. The applicant does not have orders or paperwork indicating the applicant joined the Reserve. The applicant’s intentions were to be on active duty to fully serve the country. The applicant requests the upgrade to honorable with the agreement to serve on active duty and serve the country, and one day work for Homeland Security. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 02 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the accepted basis for separation – unsatisfactory participation – 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: 31 December 2018 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: 29 July 2016 / 3 years, 2 months, 9 days (expiration term of service date: 6 October 2019) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 7 years, 2 months, 25 days. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 7 October 2011 – 20 May 2014 / GD IADT, 8 November 2011 – 11 May 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) USARCG, 12 May 2012 – 28 July 2016 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, dated 7 October 2011, reflects the applicant’s Home of Record address. Orders C-08-610868, dated 10 August 2016, reflect the applicant was voluntarily reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to a Reserve unit. The orders were addressed to the same address on the applicant’s enlistment contract. Orders 19-016-00013, dated 16 January 2019, reflect the applicant was reduced from E-2 to E- 1, effective 23 December 2018 and discharged on 31 December 2018 from the U.S. Army Reserve. The orders were addressed to the same address on the applicant’s enlistment contract. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; 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 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 19-016- 00013, dated 16 January 2019. 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 family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The applicant contends a sergeant advised the applicant to get out of the service to make it easier to transfer to active duty. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The applicant's contentions (1-3) were carefully considered. However, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the applicant discharge are unknown. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be the applicant responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends not being aware the applicant was in the USAR. Orders C-08-610868, reflect the applicant was voluntarily reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to a Reserve unit. The address on the applicant’s reassignment orders was the same address entered on the applicant’s enlistment contract and endorsed by the applicant. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a change of address document. 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. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD, and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army Reserve. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 19-016-00013, dated 16 January 2019. 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 for unsatisfactory participation-missing drills fell below that level of satisfactory or meritorious service warranting an upgrade. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s family issues do not mitigate the applicant unsatisfactory participation of missing drills as the Army affords Soldiers many legitimate avenues available to assist Soldiers, including seeking separation for hardship. Therefore, no change is warranted. (3) The applicant contends a sergeant advised the applicant to get out of the service to make it easier to transfer to active duty. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support this contention and the applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. (5) The applicant contends not being aware the applicant was in the USAR. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s AMHRR contains a copy of Orders C-08-610868, that reflect the applicant was voluntarily reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to a Reserve unit. The address on the applicant’s reassignment orders was the same address entered on the applicant’s enlistment contract and endorsed by the applicant. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a change of address document. Therefore, no change is warranted at this time. (6) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and determined that 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 this time. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 the applicant’s missed drill reasoning was not enough to excuse the accepted basis for separation – unsatisfactory participation. 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 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 DD-214 / 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 AR20210005048 1