1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 24 August 2020 b. Date Received: 26 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. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there is an issue of propriety in the discharge. Under AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16 rehabilitation efforts were not made. The applicant was in the same battery the entire time while serving in the Army. AR 635-200 requires at a minimum a change of unit or a rehabilitation waiver, which was not afforded to the applicant. The applicant was never mentored or afforded the opportunity to grow and develop as a leader. The applicant has over 8 years military service, over 7 of those years were served honorably and above reproach. The applicant’s military service and record does not reflect the discharge and narrative given. The applicant has continued to better themself post military, and has continued to uphold the Army Values. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 November 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 February 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 October 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: * Between on or about 30 August 2017 and on or about 30 November 2018 the applicant was derelict in the performance of their duties * On or about 19 March 2019, the applicant was derelict in the performance of their duties * On or about 30 May 2019, the applicant wrongfully appropriated military property of the United States (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 October 2019 (5) Administrative Separation Board: (a) On 27 November 2019 and 13 December 2019, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. (b) On 18 December 2019, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board determined the three allegations against the applicant were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (c) On 18 December 2019, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 January 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2019 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / High School Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13B20, Cannon Crewmember / 8 years, 1 months, and 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 14 October 2008 - 13 October 2012, HD RA, 29 December 2015 - 2 January 2019 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 January 2010 - 9 August 2010 ); (8 January 2012 - 2 August 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: USN/MCAM, AAM-2, AGCM-2, MCGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, MCSSDR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 29 December 2015 - 2 March 2017 / Qualified 3 March 2017 - 2 March 2018 / Highly Qualified 2 March 2018 - 2 April 2019 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Service School Academic Evaluation Report, 29 June 2018, shows the applicant achieved course standards for the Field Artillery Cannon Section Chief, Advanced Leaders Course. The applicant demonstrated superior leadership skills, contribution to group work, and evaluation of student’s research ability. (2) DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 17 July 2019, shows the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 17 July 2019. (3) Developmental Counseling Form, 21 March 2019, shows the applicant was counseled for not properly securing the arms rooms. (4) CG Article 15, 4 April 2019, for being derelict in the performance of duties in that the applicant negligently failed to secure the arms room on or about 19 March 2019. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $853.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty for 14 days. (5) Law Enforcement Report, 3 June 2019, shows an investigation revealed that a vehicle belonging to the applicant was repossessed from in front of the applicant’s on post housing. The repossessing company conducted an inventory of all items within the vehicle and discovered what was believed to be military weapons scopes. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the items in question were not on any property books and the property was released to the applicant’s chain of command. The unit planned to conduct an AR 15-6 investigation. (6) Memorandum, Findings and Recommendations Memorandum pursuant to AR 15-6, 18 June 2019, shows the investigating officer found and recommended: (a) Findings: * The applicant attempted to place linked ammunition in an amnesty box, because the applicant was unable to place the ammunition in the amnesty box, the applicant determined that there was no further action needed and left the ammunition in the applicant’s privately owned vehicle * Two Sights, Holographic and Sure-Fire flashlight discovered in the applicant’s privately owned vehicle were unable to be conclusively proven to be government property * The applicant was informed of an arbitration settlement concerning damages to the applicant’s previous home of residence and the applicant’s lack of proactive pursuit in regard to this arbitration was indicative of an apathetic approach toward professionalism (b) Recommendations: * Removal of the applicant as the primary armorer * Receive appropriate administrative and/or non-judicial remedies to address the applicant’s improper handling of the ammunition and failure to conduct necessary inventories (7) Developmental Counseling Form, 3 June 2019, shows the applicant was counseled for consequences of conduct/actions from 30 May 2019 which is a possible violation of Article 108 (Loss, Damage, Destruction, or Wrongful disposition of military property) pending investigation results. (8) FG Article 15, 3 August 2019, for: (a) Being derelict in the performance of duties in that the applicant failed to inventory Sites, Holographic and Sure-Fire flashlights on or about 30 August 2017 to on or about 13 November 2018. (b) Wrongfully appropriate two EO Sites, two cans of .50 caliber blank ammunition and, one can of 7.62 millimeter blank ammunition of a certain value, military property of the United States on or about 30 May 2019. (c) The punishment consisted of reduction from E-6 to E-5; forfeiture of $1,688.00 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (9) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 27 August 2019, shows the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and TBI with negative results. The applicant did not currently have a behavioral health condition that caused the applicant to fail medical retention standards per AR 40-501. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. (10) DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 4 September 2019, shows the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 4 September 2019. (11) Developmental Counseling Form, 5 September 2019, shows the applicant was counseled for initiation of chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. (12) Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers, 18 December 2019, shows: (a) The allegation of “Between on or about 30 August 2017 and on or about 5 June 2019, [the applicant] were derelict in the performance of [the applicant’s] duties,” was supported by a ponderance of the evidence and warranted the separation of the applicant. (b) The allegation of “On or about 19 March 2019, [the applicant] were derelict in the performance of [the applicant’s] duties,” was supported by a ponderance of the evidence and warranted the separation of the applicant. (c) The allegation of “On or about 30 May 2019, [the applicant] wrongfully appropriated military property of the United States,” was supported by a ponderance of the evidence and warranted the separation of the applicant. (d) The board recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; USMC DD Form 214; two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs); Final Evaluation from Northwest Lineman College. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Final Evaluation from Northwest Lineman College shows the applicant’s knowledge and skill was in the top 1 percent of the class. 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) AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d (2), states the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Such circumstances may include: * Two consecutive failures of the Army physical fitness test * Pregnancy while in entry-level status * Highly disruptive or potentially suicidal behavior, particularly in reception battalions * Active resistance of rehabilitative efforts * Soldiers assigned to small installations or at remote locations * Situations in which transfer to a different duty station would be detrimental to the Army or the Soldier (for example, indebtedness, participation in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program, Mental Health Treatment Program, and so forth) (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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. 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 and a change to the narrative reasons. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 8 years, 1 month, and 8 days during which the applicant served 1 year, 1 month, and 22 days between two deployments in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2012. The applicant received a FG and CG Record of Proceedings under Article 15 for various acts of misconduct in 2019. The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service on 6 February 2020. c. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. d. The applicant contends, in effect, under AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16 rehabilitation efforts were not made. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d (2), states the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant’s AMHRR contains memorandum, separation under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b, a pattern of misconduct, (Applicant), 21 January 2020, that shows the separation authority reviewed the rehabilitative transfer requirement per AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16, and determined the requirement(s) did not apply to the applicant’s action. e. The applicant contends they were never mentored or afforded the opportunity to grow and develop as a leader. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of two non-judicial punishments. The applicant’s AMHRR contains an NCOER with a thru date of 2 March 2018, showing the applicant was rated as highly qualified and number one of three sergeants. A Service School Academic Evaluation Report, 29 June 2018, that shows the applicant demonstrated superior leadership skills, contribution to group work, and evaluation of student’s research ability while attending the Field Artillery Cannon Section Chief, Advanced Leaders Course. f. The applicant states they completed over 8 years of military service, over 7 of those years were served honorably and above reproach, however the applicant’s military service and record does not reflect that in their discharge and narrative reason given. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. g. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board’s statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, under AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16 rehabilitation efforts were not made. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s record of service, however based on the misconduct and unanimous chain of command support against the applicant’s character, the Board concurred the current discharge is appropriate. Furthermore, according to the regulation referenced and Army policies and procedures rehabilitation transfers are not required and are only advised for consideration by the separation authority. (2) The applicant contends they was never mentored or afforded the opportunity to grow and develop as a leader. The Board considered this contention and found no corroborating evidence to support the assertion or impact on the applicant’s discharge and therefore found the discharge proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant held no in service mitigating behavioral health conditions to excuse or mitigate the offenses of Derelict in the performance of duties x2, wrongfully appropriated military property of the United States. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below the level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to an Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210009450 1