1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 August 2020 b. Date Received: 25 August 2020 c. Counsel: 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). Through counsel, the applicant requests an upgrade to an honorable characterization and their separation code changed. b. Counsel states. The separation authority failed to fully consider the applicant's mental conditions and the toxic leadership they had to endure when it was determined they should be administratively separated under AR 635-200, Chapter 13, and characterized the applicant as general (under honorable conditions). It is inequitable, improper, and unjust to characterize the applicant's service with anything other than honorable. (1) In a self-authored statement, the applicant states they are a naturalized US citizen from Odessa, Ukraine who graduated at 16 years old by accelerating through the summer so they could join the Army at age 17, which they did. Their plan was to do 20 years like their parents who both served in the Army during Operation Desert Storm. Striving for excellence, they passed their AIT job test the first time and they scored the highest PT score (314) in basic training, receiving a "300 coin" from the 1Sgt and earned their expert badge. They volunteered to go to Air Assault school and other military schools to advance their military career. Moreover, the 1Sgt waived the time requirement promoting them to PFC. The applicant was offered an opportunity to go to Airborne school, on their path to Special Forces, however, they did not follow through due to personal reasons. (2) They were multiple instances of harassment and disrespect towards the lower ranking soldiers like them. Examples of the unbecoming behavior included public humiliation in front of a battery formation, making them 'Army crawl" around to make an example out of them, throwing the storage keys far away so they can crawl in the dirt to find them, when they are found and brought back to the NCO, they would proceed to throw them again and again, like they were a dog fetching a stick, stating the lesson was to "always have the storage keys with them." The harassment continued when the NCO did not want to get themselves wet while it was pouring rain in the field, instructed the lower ranking soldier to do it, showing the lower ranking Soldiers are just slaves that can meet the NCO's personal needs, ordering them to get the NCO chocolate milk from a supply truck. Additionally, they were made to carry the NCO's bags and get them drinks when the NCO was thirsty. (3) The applicant stated they used the "open door policy" bringing with them 7 witnesses from their squad that testified to the harassment by the SSG and other NCOs, later that day the SSG stated "one of you pieces of S__t snitched me out." The applicant stated nothing really changed from reporting the behavior, was told by a specialist that they just have to go along with it so they would not become a bigger target. They stated the SSG was chaptered out of the Army the following year for reasons unknown. (4) Due to the toxic leadership, the applicant developed severe depression, anxiety, and insomnia and after they received a confirmed diagnosis from the veteran affairs (VA) after they separated. The VA rated the three conditions at 70% disabling; they have been seeing a psychiatrist who diagnosed them with PTSD. (5) The applicant states they are currently in the process of obtaining a job with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Customs, Borders, and Patrol (CBP) officer. They served most of their 3-year contractual obligation and was recommended for an honorable discharge by their unit commander; however, received a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) from the final authority. Taking into consideration their mental conditions and their toxic leadership, they believe they were wrongfully discharged from the Army; therefore, requesting an upgrade of their characterization of service. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Mood Disorder, PTSD and MST experience mitigating the applicant's unsatisfactory performance Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the Board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 7 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 January 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed they were being separated for unsatisfactory performance due to not having developed sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: On [illegible date], the applicant met with counsel and elected not to provide a statement. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 February 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 October 2016 / 3 years and 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / High School Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13J10 Fire Control Spec / 2 years, 5 months and 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) On 12 September 2016, at the age of 17 and with parental consent [form is missing signatures], the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve's Delayed Entry Program; they enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 2016 for 3 years and 19 weeks as an E-1. (2) On 12 September 2017, provides the applicant was counseled for being late to formation by showing up on time 1000; the counseling SGT stated they needed to report fifteen minutes early to the scheduled times and once the command "Fall in" is given, they are considered late. Page 2 of 2 which shows if the applicant agreed or disagreed and/or if the applicant included a statement on their behalf. (3) On 19 September 2018, the applicant was counseled for failing to follow instructions on 12 September 2018, they were released early for hurricane Florence preparation, the counseling SGT was on leave but informed that day to account for personnel once in the morning and the afternoon to ensure of safety and to inform the chain of damages. The SGT stated they did not know if they were not clear or if the applicant did not understand. On the day counseled, the SGT asked the applicant did they have damage and the applicant states "they had a major leak, ceiling will have to be cut out, and their roof has some shingles that were ripped off." The SGT stated the applicant did not report the damages during the storm, only that they were safe. (4) On 21 September 2018, the applicant was counseled for failure to follow a lawful order on 12 September 2018 when SSG instructed the applicant to remain at their barracks and not their home because of impending hurricane Florence [the approach of hurricane Florence prompted an early release for the week and several guard rosters were posted in the event of a power outage that the applicant was listed on]. They ignored the SSG's instructions and stayed home over the weekend resulting in the applicant's failure to report to work at all on 19 September 2019 due to the roads being flooded around their house that prevented travel. The SSG recommended UCMJ action; the applicant agreed without any remarks. (5) On 2 October 2018, the applicant was counseled by their SGT for failure to report [in violation of Article 86, UCMJ] to the 0600-morning formation to complete their Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), stating they were instructed to report at 0550 in which they failed to obey [in violation of Article 92, UCMJ]. The applicant stated to SSG [redacted] they had class (Soldier for Life (SFL)) at 0800 and felt they did not need to be at formation. The SGT stated they were tracking the applicant's class begin at 0900 and told the applicant the APFT was required. The SGT stated they have not been chronically late in the past, however, their behavior has become more common, and the continued disregard for the standards resulted in their recommending UCMJ action. Page 2 of 2 is missing noting whether they agreed or disagreed or if the applicant left remarks. (6) On 15 October 2018, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for failing to go at the time prescribed (0600) to your appointed place of duty (formation at 2nd Combat Team's Barracks) which is in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. As a result, the applicant was imposed 5 days of extra duty, 5 days of restriction, and an oral reprimand/admonition. The applicant elected not to appeal. (7) On 16 November 2018, the company commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct. On 30 November 2018, the applicant was counseled to notify them of their pending involuntary separation that excluded them from attending professional military schools, assume a trusted position, receive military awards and they were not eligible for promotion. Page 2 of 2 which shows if the applicant agreed or disagreed and/or if the applicant included a statement on their behalf. (8) On 9 January 2019, the company commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. (9) On 24 January 2019, the company commander-initiated separation action to separate the applicant with an honorable characterization of service for unsatisfactory performance, stating they have not developed sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. On 6 February 2019, the commander's report states the applicant was given multiple attempts at rehabilitation without any improvement. (10) On 6 February 2019, the appropriate authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (11) On 7 March 2019, the applicant was discharged from the active duty accordingly. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant completed 2 years, 5 months, and 4 days of net service. The applicant has not completed their first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Through counsel, the applicant submitted a mental health examination from Fayetteville VA Medical Center, NC dated 27 February 2019, providing the applicant, arrived on time, dressed casually and appropriately groomed, alert and oriented; they did not meet criteria for ADHD, however, a referral for psychological testing is recommended for diagnostic clarification regarding possible diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD); and they were diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder. (a) Through counsel, the applicant provided a VA disability decision letter awarding them with 90% for total service-connected disabilities on 3 April 2019, in effect, special entitlement to special monthly compensation based on loss of use of their creative organ and insomnia disorder with depression and anxiety at 70% disabling. (b) Through counsel, the applicant provided a treatment summary for Sage - Heart Counseling, PLLC, Fayetteville, NC, dated 25 March 2020, provides the applicant completed 8 sessions [from December 2019 to present] and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (unspecified), major depressive disorder (MDD), moderate, single episode, and other insomnia; Moderate level of anxiety, sleep disturbances, increased risk for physical/mental conditions, low level of resilience; indicating a severe level of post-traumatic stress disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Application for Review of Discharge (DD Form 293); Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214); Separation Package; Mental Health Evaluation from Fayetteville VA Medical Center, NC; VA Disability Decision Letter; PTSD Basics article; Mental Status Examination and treatment summary from Sage - Heart Counseling, PLLC, Fayetteville, NC; AR 635-200 Chapter 3 reference; Hagel Memo; Kurta Memo; Two third-party statements that read as follows: a. On 25 July 2020, provides a statement from SPC who served in the Army for 4 years who served in the same section as the applicant. They stated the applicant did their job and always on time. The applicant was helpful to SPC by providing rides to their appointments and the post exchange, helping them apply for their VA benefits to access their disability and their healthcare for their own disabilities, and continued to take them to college until they were able to buy a car. SPC confirms the applicant was harassed by some of their NCOs like SSG [redacted] and SGT [redacted], who made the applicant crawl on the ground to find the keys they threw in the grass like it was a game, while laughing. Moreover, many people including the SPC were not treated right which is why they decided to leave the military when their contract ended, concluding the applicant is a good guy and was a very good soldier in the military. b. On 27 July 2020, provides a statement from SPC who serviced in the Army from 2016 to 2019 at the same unit as the applicant, who they met in 2017 and considers a friend, stating the applicant is respectable and cares for others. SPC describes the applicant as a hardworking Soldier that worked fast and efficient. The unit was toxic with very low retention rates, which why they decided to get out of the Army along with other Soldiers that experienced the low morale and unsupportive leadership. They can confirm that the applicant was not treated professionally. Their advice to the applicant was to "go along" with it because making reports and using the "open door policy" just made the problem worse. Since they were at a combat arms unit, behavior such as taunting, degrading "nicknames" and humiliating "discipline" was normal and considered "unit cohesion" at their unit. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been under the care of a psychiatrist since their separation, successfully treating their PTSD. They are in the process of obtaining a job with DHS as a CBP officer. 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) 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. (2) 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. (3) An 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. (4) Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, the 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. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. (5) Chapter 15 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 memoranda. 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 "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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. g. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. A review of the records provides administrative irregularity in the proper retention of official military records, specifically 4 of the 5 counseling forms (DA 4856) are missing the second page that displays whether the applicant agreed, disagreed, or whether they left a statement on their behalf. b. The available evidence provides the applicant enlisted with parental consent [form missing signature] at the age of 17 years old who served more than 2 years before performance issues were attributed to their administrative separation. Evidence provides the applicant was counseled for being late to formation 11 months and 9 days after enlisting; the AMHRR is void of the second page documenting whether the applicant agreed or disagreed or left a statement on their behalf. (1) A year later, the applicant was counseled for failure to follow a lawful order that instructed the applicant, in preparation of hurricane Florence, to stay in their barracks and not their house because of possible power outages where they lived; this was confirmed on the guard rosters. Since the applicant ignored the SSG instructions and stayed home, they were unable to travel due to flooding, subsequently causing the failure to report and the SSG stated they were recommending UCMJ action; the applicant agreed and did not provide a statement. (2) The applicant was counseled for failure to report to their 100% APFT testing that begin at 0600 on 2 October 2018. The applicant stated since they had SFL - TAPs class for two days beginning at 0800, they did not have to report. The SSG stated they were tracking the class begin at 0900 nevertheless the applicant was told to be there 10 minutes prior to formation; whether the applicant agreed or disagreed or left a statement on their behalf is not in their AMHRR. As a result, they received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) sentencing them to 5 days extra duty and restriction; the applicant elected immediately not to appeal. (3) In pertinent part, the applicant stated they used the "open door policy" to speak with their 1Sgt along with 7 witnesses from their squad, that testified to the harassment, disrespect, and public humiliation the applicant received in front of a battery formation. The applicant stated that later in the day the NCO came to their squad and said, "one of you pieces of s__t snitched me out." They stated nothing changed from that point; they were offered advice from another Soldier to "go along" and "doing reports will make you a bigger target." (4) Notwithstanding the separation approval's final determination, the company commander provided an overview of the applicant's performance and recommended they receive an honorable discharge. c. The applicant sought mental health assistance through the VA after they were separated. They provided a VA disability rating decision of 90% total with depression, anxiety, and insomnia being 70 percent disabling. They were initially diagnosed with an unspecified anxiety disorder; however, currently they are in psychotherapeutic care being treated for PTSD (unspecified), major depressive disorder (MDD), moderate, single episode and other insomnia. d. The third-party statements attest to the fact that the applicant was made to crawl in the grass fetching their keys multiple times. They attested to the applicant's character, loyalty, and dedication to their work, stating the applicant was a hardworking Soldier who worked well and efficiently. Also, they both spoke to the low morale and unsupportive leadership resulted in a toxic unit and low retention rates. e. The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. They completed 2 years, 5 months, and 4 days of their 3-year enlistment contractual obligation prior to the unsatisfactory performance that led to their discharge. f. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, the 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. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. g. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates the guidance is not intended to interfere or impeded on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether its supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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/experiences: MST; Mood Disorder (70% SC); PTSD. (Note-applicant's diagnosis of Major Depressive DO is subsumed under Mood DO; applicant's diagnosis of Anxiety DO is subsumed under PTSD) (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the MST occurred during military service. Diagnosis of PTSD is related to military service. VA service connection for Mood DO establishes it occurred and/or began during active service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating experience, MST, as well as several mitigating BH conditions, Mood Disorder and PTSD. (Note-diagnosis of Major Depressive DO is subsumed under Mood Disorder diagnosis. Diagnosis of Anxiety DO is subsumed under PTSD diagnosis). As both MST and Mood Disorder can be associated with impaired performance, diminished ability to focus and difficulty concentrating, there is a nexus between these conditions and the applicant's separation from the Army for Unsatisfactory Performance. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's MST experience and Mood Disorder outweighed the Unsatisfactory basis for separation for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant, through counsel, contends their issues in the Army are attributable in large part, to their PTSD and anxiety issues, as exacerbated by toxic leadership which was intent on demeaning and harassing Soldiers. Their minor misconduct, disrespect, failure to repair and failure to follow instructions are exactly the types of behavior one would associate with an unhappy, troubled Soldier who is poorly led. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating experience, MST, as well as several mitigating BH conditions, Mood Disorder and PTSD outweigh the unsatisfactory performance basis of separation. (2) The applicant, through counsel, contends the battery commander was the most sensitive to balancing their misconduct with poor NCO leadership, recommended their service be characterized as honorable. The separation authority failed to fully consider the applicant's mental conditions and toxic leadership they had to endure when their administrative separation was approved. It is inequitable, improper, and unjust characterize to the applicant's service as anything other than Honorable under current Department of Defense guidance. The Board considered this contention and acknowledged the applicant's commander's recommendation and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating experience, MST, as well as several mitigating BH conditions, Mood Disorder and PTSD outweigh the unsatisfactory performance basis of separation. (3) The applicant, through counsel, contends AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7 indicates that an honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and additionally can be awarded even when there are discipline infractions, including convictions by court-martial and nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating experience, MST, as well as several mitigating BH conditions, Mood Disorder and PTSD outweigh the unsatisfactory performance basis of separation. (4) The applicant, through counsel, contends they served most of their 3-year contractual obligation. The Board acknowledged the applicant's service and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to the applicant's mitigating experience, MST, as well as several mitigating BH conditions, Mood Disorder and PTSD outweigh the unsatisfactory performance basis of separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Mood Disorder, PTSD and MST experience mitigating the applicant's unsatisfactory performance. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 15, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. Based on the applicant's medical diagnosis the Board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Mood Disorder, PTSD and MST experience does mitigate the applicant's unsatisfactory performance. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation and the character of service the applicant received upon separation were inequitable. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JFF. (3) The Board determined the reentry code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Secretarial Authority / JFF d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20210009153 1