1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 July 2020 b. Date Received: 5 August 2020 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a change to his reentry eligibility (RE) code from a 3 to a 1. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he should have received a RE Code of 1, as his civilian investigation was closed when he ETS'd and his command told him that he was going to be un-flagged. He believed the transition office did not get updated information and placed an RE Code 3 without any proper reason as to why. He does not know why he received a RE-3 as opposed to a RE-1; his DD Form 214 originally listed a RE Code 1; however, when he received his final DD Form 214, it contained a RE Code of 3. He also does not know why his final DD Form 214 says he was unavailable for signature. He attended all appointments and conducted his final out in accordance with all of the instructions he was given. In a records review conducted on 6 October 2021, and by a 3-2 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: Completion of Required Active Service / AR 635-200 / Chapter 4 / MBK / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 23 April 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: 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: 24 April 2017 / 3 years (The applicant's DD Form 214 under review indicates in block 12a "Dated Entered AD This Period" as 20 July 2016; however, enlistment documents in the file indicates the date should be 24 April 2017) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 14 years / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 7 years, 3 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 27 December 2012 to 24 February 2013 / NA ADT, 25 February 2013 to 11 October 2013 / HD ARNG, 12 October 2013 to 23 April 2017 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 17 May 2020, includes a Flag Code "MA", with a Flag Start Date of 2 December 2019, which indicates the applicant had an adverse action flag for being under investigation from law enforcement. The applicant's DD Form 214, indicates the applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (REINF) with a Reserve Obligation Termination Date of 19 July 2024, and was assigned a separation code of MBK. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored letter, letters from attorney's; excerpt from AR 635-8 and AR 601-210; counseling statements; military personnel record/enlistment documents; prior DD Form's 214; and DD Form's 214 for the period of service under review. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 4, establishes the policies and procedures for separating a Soldier upon expiration of enlistment of fulfillment of service obligation. The periods of military service required of all Army Soldiers will be in accordance with applicable laws. Periods for which enlistment is authorized are in NGR 600-200, AR 140-111, and AR 601-210. Periods for which Soldiers are ordered to AD are prescribed by law. Soldier enlisted or ordered to AD normally will be discharged or released from AD on the date he/she completes the period for which enlisted or ordered to AD. Personnel released from AD and transferred to the USAR upon completion of the term of service for which ordered into active Federal service, or released to their Reserve Component upon completion of AD. These Soldiers will not be discharged until completion of their reserve obligation. (6) Paragraph 4-5, states, a Soldier being separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of honorable, unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and service is uncharacterized. (7) Chapter 5 provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. Paragraph 5-3 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "MBK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, for completion of required active service, who are eligible to reenlist or with a DCSS in force and who are REFRAD on completion of enlistment and transferred to the Reserve Components to complete Military Service obligation. Delete if NA (1) 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. DISCUSSION 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 change to his reentry eligibility (RE) code from a 3 to a 1. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 4, by reason of "Completion of Required Active Service," with a characterization of service of Honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending that he should have received a RE Code of 1, as his civilian investigation was closed when he ETS'd and his command told him that he was going to be un-flagged. He believed the transition office did not get updated information and placed an RE Code 3 without any proper reason as to why. He does not know why he received a RE-3 as opposed to a RE-1; his DD Form 214 originally listed a RE Code 1; however, when he received his final DD Form 214, it contained a RE Code of 3. He also does not know why his final DD Form 214 says he was unavailable for signature. He attended all appointments and conducted his final out in accordance with all of the instructions he was given. The evidence of the record reflects the applicant entered Active Duty on 24 April 2017, for a period of 3 years. At the time of the applicant's discharge, the applicant had served 3 years on Active Duty. The applicant's AMHRR includes no acts of misconduct or derogatory information. Upon separation the applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group to serve the remaining service obligation until 19 July 2024, after separation from Active Duty. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and ADHD by the military, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, could potentially mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Review of the VA medical records indicate that the BH condition which could mitigate the basis for discharge occurred during military service and has service-connected the applicant. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. In reviewing the applicant's misconduct, details surrounding the events, the BH diagnoses and their status at the time of the misconduct, it is unlikely that the applicant's in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and ADHD contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, these conditions do not impair judgment or the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Applicant's explanation of the misconduct and reasons behind it reflect motivation and rationalization, factors which indicate that the applicant knew his behavior was wrong. Accordingly, while Liberal Consideration was applied, the applicant's misconduct is not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's law enforcement flag outweighed the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and ADHD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that he should have received a RE Code of 1, as his civilian investigation was closed when he ETS'd and his command told him that he was going to be un-flagged. He believed the transition office did not get updated information and placed an RE Code 3 without any proper reason as to why. He does not know why he received a RE-3 as opposed to a RE-1; his DD Form 214 originally listed a RE Code 1; however, when he received his final DD Form 214, it contained a RE Code of 3. He also does not know why his final DD Form 214 says he was unavailable for signature. He attended all appointments and conducted his final out in accordance with all of the instructions he was given. Because the applicant's separation file is not available in the AMHRR, the ADRB did not have enough information upon which to justify a change. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. 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 it was already characterized as Honorable. (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, and the applicant did not provide any evidence of the contrary. The RE code of 3 will allow the applicant to re-enlist with a waiver. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20210007442 7