1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 July 2020 b. Date Received: 14 July 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 honorable. The applicant requests a separation code and reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant came from a line of veterans and was in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) all four years of high school. During the senior year, the applicant shattered the knee, fully recovered, and was granted a waiver to join the service. During initial entry training, the applicant held student leadership positions. The applicant spent two years at the first duty station and was not in any trouble. The applicant never received negative counseling. The applicant began to be sick, depressed, and lost weight. The applicant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and depression with mixed anxiety. In Nov 2019, the applicant began the medical evaluation board (MEB) process, and the leadership began to ridicule the applicant, call the applicant out of the applicant’s name, and tell the applicant the diagnoses were not real. The applicant was forced to do things in the gray areas of the profile. The applicant was told the applicant was not receiving E-4. The applicant was counseled on different dates of the incident to make it seem the applicant had a pattern of misconduct. The applicant was recommended for UCMJ. The applicant fought it and still lost everything. The applicant’s profile had temperature restrictions and physical training (PT) at own pace. The applicant was forced to stay outside and perform PT with the group. The applicant’s profile was changed, and the weather restrictions were removed by another doctor because of “not enough evidence” but the box for climate affected was still checked. The applicant attempted to have the profile updated but was not allowed to go on sick call. The applicant was unable to look out for the applicant’s health and wellbeing, which resulted in the applicant visiting Behavior Health more and having a desire to kill oneself. The applicant made a request to the brigade command sergeant major (CSM) to move to another unit or to S- 4 because the applicant could not perform the MOS. The applicant was being harassed and was not taken seriously. The applicant altered the profile back to the way it was to prevent the pain and the applicant confessed to doing so. The applicant was recommended for UCMJ action and began to be processed for separation. In the matter of two months, the applicant’s life changed. The applicant spoke with the brigade CSM and commander, and the commanding general. The brigade CSM and commander desired for the applicant to remain in the service. In almost three years, the applicant had never been in any trouble and did not have a pattern of misconduct. The applicant knew of two witnesses who experienced the same type of harassment. Instead of the command helping the applicant, the applicant was separated while sick with no income and no behavioral health treatment. The applicant had to resubmit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim and had to move in with a friend during COVID-19. The applicant desires to continue to serve the country. The applicant is employed at the Defense Threat and Reduction Agency on Fort Belvoir. The applicant desires to serve at the very least in the U.S. Army Reserve. The applicant desires a second chance. The applicant never believed the career the applicant fought so hard to join would end like this. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 June 2023, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 March 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 14 November 2019, the applicant having knowledge of a lawful order from Sergeant (SGT) K. R., to “bring all appointments to SGT K. R.’s attention 48 hours prior to the appointment” or words to that effect, willfully disobeyed the same. On 18 November 2019, the applicant violated a lawful general regulation to wit: paragraph 3-4d, Army Regulation 670-1, dated 25 May 2017, by wrongfully wearing earrings while in uniform. On 21 November 2019, the applicant was disrespectful in language toward SGT K. R., a noncommissioned officer, by saying to SGT K. R. “no, the mission is complete it is time to go and you are burning bridges” or words to that effect. On 22 November 2019, the applicant having received a lawful order from SGT K. R. to “stop talking” or words to that effect, willfully disobeyed the same. On 9 December 2019, with intent to deceive, the applicant falsified the Physical Profile Record, which record was false in that Block 30 stated “Gym PT below 55 degrees and no 24 hour duty” or words to that effect. On 5 February 2020, having knowledge of a lawful order from Master Sergeant (MSG) T. Q., not to wear anything other than the rank of Private (PVT), the applicant failed to obey the same by wrongfully wearing the rank of Private First Class (PFC). (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable / The brigade commander recommended the applicant be separated, but the separation be suspended for six months. If separated, the brigade commander recommended an honorable characterization of service. (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 1 April 2020, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 May 2020 / Honorable / The separation authority considered the medical evaluation board proceedings and directed administrative separation. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 March 2018 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provided Physical Profile, dated 3 December 2019, reflecting the applicant had the following medical conditions: Shaving, ingrown facial hair, razor bumps, and pain socialization syndrome. Gym PT below 55 degrees and no 24 hour duty. The applicant was referred to an MEB. Memorandum for Record, dated 5 December 2019, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a chronic pain syndrome and the physician recommended the applicant move to a barracks with access to a kitchen because of the healthy dietary requirements. Memorandum for Record, dated 7 February 2020, reflects the applicant verbally admitted guilt during final reading of Company Grade Article 15 proceeding to purposefully falsifying applicant's Physical Profile Record on 3 February 2020. Commander’s Report, dated 14 April 2020, reflects the received Article 15s. The applicant was reduced to Private E-2 on 12 December 2019 and to Private on 3 February 2020. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for declining duty performance, wearing unauthorized rank and disobeying a lawful order. The applicant received numerous positive counseling forms. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Medical Record, dated 2 December 2019, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with, among other conditions: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; myalgia; and myopia, bilateral. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; separation documents; applicant’s supporting statement to separation; five third-party statements; Fibromyalgia Flyer; and medical record. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is employed at the Defense Threat and Reduction Agency at Fort Belvoir. 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (4) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (5) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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 separation code and reentry code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the separation code (SPD) should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed 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. The applicant contends being diagnosed with various health conditions, to include mental health issues. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting diagnoses adjustment disorder with depressed mood; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; myalgia; myopia, bilateral; and pain socialization syndrome, and the applicant was referred to an MEB. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and the applicant was referred to an MEB. The record is void of a mental status evaluation. The medical documents were considered by the separation authority and the separation authority decided to continue with the administrative separation proceedings. The applicant contends being harassed by members of the unit because of the applicant’s health conditions. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the brigade commander and CSM recommended the applicant be retained. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the brigade commander recommended separation, but the separation be suspended for six months. If the applicant was separated, the brigade commander recommended an honorable characterization of service. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. The Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and is subsequently processed for an involuntary administrative separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation may continue to completion of the MEB phase. If referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) is warranted, the MEB will be forwarded to the GCMCA to determine whether to proceed with the DES process or the administrative separation proceedings. The applicant contends maintaining employment at the Defense Threat and Reduction Agency at Fort Belvoir. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses: The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder with pre-enlistment depression and suicidality. Post-service, he is service connected for an Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with an Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder with pre-enlistment depression and suicidality. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder relates to difficulty coping with stressors and does not impair an individual’s ability to make conscious choices, know right from wrong, and understand the consequences. Rather, the applicant’s Personality Disorder is more likely than not related to the misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant’s failure to obey lawful orders, disrespect to a NCO, and falsifying an official record. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with various health conditions, to include mental health issues. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant’s failure to obey lawful orders, disrespect to a NCO, and falsifying an official record. (2) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. The Board determined that the applicant’s request regarding a MEB does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends the separation code (SPD) and reentry eligibility (RE) code should be changed. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support a finding that the current separation and reentry codes are not proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends being harassed by members of the unit because of the applicant’s health conditions. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient supporting evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to prove this contention. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (5) The applicant contends the brigade commander and CSM recommended the applicant be retained. The Board considered this contention but found that the separation was proper and equitable and within the Separation Authority’s discretion. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (6) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s characterization of service as Honorable is appropriate. However, the Board found that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and reentry code are also appropriate in view of applicant’s misconduct of failure to obey lawful orders, disrespect to a NCO, and falsifying an official record. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (7) The applicant contends maintaining employment at the Defense Threat and Reduction Agency, on Fort Belvoir. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service employment does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offenses of failure to obey lawful orders, disrespect to a NCO, and falsifying an official record. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 the applicant already holds an Honorable characterization. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code 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 AR20210005584 1