1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 July 2020 b. Date Received: 19 August 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change to not show as "unsatisfactory performance." The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the narrative reason and discharge characterization is unjust. The applicant served over 4 years out of a 5 year enlistment with honorable and successful service. The applicant progressed and was promoted to corporal/E-4, and was always held in high regard by leadership. The applicant deployed to Afghanistan where the unit was placed with special forces units. The applicant was approved to return home early due to the applicant's wife's high risk pregnancy and family medical issues. The applicant was scheduled to attend leadership training in June 2018, however while in Afghanistan the applicant requested to delay going to school and requested leave due to the birth of the baby. Upon returning stateside the applicant was informed to attend the June leadership training. The applicant left one very stressful situation in Afghanistan and returned to another very stressful situation. The applicant encountered car problems and arrived to training late a few times, which is the sole reason the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant did not miss training, however, was late to training. The applicant does not believe that over 4 years of honorable and successful service warrants unsatisfactory performance and a less than honorable discharge. The applicant was unaware of being reduced from a corporal to a specialist until receiving the DD Form 214. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge and minor nature of misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-1. 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Illegible (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was dismissed from the basic leadership course (BLC) for failure to achieve course standards. The applicant failed to appear at the appointed place of duty on more than two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 October 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 November 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 August 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 127 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 4 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 September 2017 - 18 May 2018) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-C, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, Dismissal of (Applicant) from the BLC, 29 June 2018, reflects the applicant was dismissed from the BLC on 22 June 2018 for personal conduct. Service School Academic Evaluation Report, 29 June 2018, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards for violating the established discipline standards by failing to appear at the appointed place of duty on more than two occasions. Five Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), date unknown, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 2 July 2018. Developmental Counseling Form, 12 September 2018, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of a flag and recommendation for a chapter 13 due to failing BLC. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter. 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 an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change to not show as "unsatisfactory performance." The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed and not show as "unsatisfactory performance." 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, in effect, the applicant served over 4 years of honorable and successful service, was promoted to corporal/E-4, and deployed to Afghanistan. The applicant does not believe the applicant's honorable and successful service warrants unsatisfactory performance and a less than honorable discharge. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant requested to delay going to leadership training and requested leave due to the birth of the applicant's baby. The applicant did not provide evidence other than the applicant's statement to not be placed into the earlier June sergeant training, because of the birth of the baby and family members medical conditions. The AMHRR is void of a request to delay the BLC. The applicant contends, in effect, to have encountered car problems and arrived to training late a few times and did not miss training. There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance or reported issues with the applicant's car prior to being late to training. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was unaware of being reduced from a corporal to a specialist until receiving the DD Form 214. The applicant's acknowledgement of receipt of separation notice and election of rights has the applicant's rank as specialist. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), states a specialist will be appointed to corporal when the Soldier is assigned and works in a sergeant (E-5) position. Soldiers will normally retain the rank of corporal and perform the duties of a noncommissioned officer; however, the appointment authority may laterally appoint corporal to specialist without the individual's consent upon removal from the sergeant position. The AMHRR contains an enlisted record brief, 14 December 2018, that reflects the applicant was assigned to a sergeant (skill level two) duty position from 15 September 2016 until 13 March 2018. On 14 March 2018, the applicant was placed in a skill level one (E-1 - E-4) duty position while deployed in Afghanistan. Analyst notes the applicant checked the PTSD box on the DD Form 293. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health condition and the applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the checked box on the DD Form 293, to support any behavioral health condition. The Military Review Board representative emailed the applicant at the email address in the application on 19 July, 2 August, and 21 August 2023 requesting documentation to support a mental health condition but received no response. 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 diagnosis: The applicant marked the PTSD box on the application, although did not assert the diagnosis or any behavioral health condition in his self-statement or provide related records. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant marked the PTSD box on the application, although did not assert the diagnosis or any behavioral health condition in his self-statement or provide related records. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that without additional evidence, medical or self-authored statement, the applicant's marking of PTSD does not mitigate the applicant's discharge. (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 and not show as "unsatisfactory performance." The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's length and quality of service, including combat and minor nature of the misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the applicant served over 4 years of honorable and successful service, was promoted to corporal/E-4, and deployed to Afghanistan. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (3) The applicant contends the applicant requested to delay going to leadership training and requested leave due to the birth of the applicant's baby. The Board considered this contention and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's length and quality of service, including combat and minor nature of the misconduct. (4) The applicant contends to have encountered car problems and arrived to training late a few times and did not miss training. The Board considered this contention and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's length and quality of service, including combat and minor nature of the misconduct. (5) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was unaware of being reduced from a corporal to a specialist until receiving the DD Form 214. The Board considered this contention and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's length and quality of service, including combat and minor nature of the misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge and minor nature of misconduct. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN, and the reentry code to RE-1. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length, quality, and combat service in combination with minor misconduct warranted the discharge inequitable. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-1 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210006025 1