1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 31 December 2020 b. Date Received: 31 December 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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant witnessed a battle buddy attempt suicide twice and the applicant requests an upgrade based on VA rating. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 August 2023, and by a 4-1 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 18 March 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 March 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 February 2020, the applicant was counseled on the lack of reasonable effort and refusal to train. The command attempted to give the applicant a fresh start with another company and with the FTU, but the applicant refused. Due to the applicant’s refusal to live up to the oath the applicant took, it was in the best interest of the Army to recommend the applicant be separated. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 March 2020 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 March 2020 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 October 2019 / 3 years, 22 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 4 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Developmental Counseling Statement dated 26 February 2020, reflects the applicant was counseled for failure to adapt, refusal to train, physical altercation with another Soldier, attempted AWOL, and Chapter initiation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 31 July 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder with an evaluation of 70 percent effective 19 March 2020. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, VA Rating Decision. 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 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. Unless the DCS, G-1, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority. A Soldier is in an entry-level status (ELS) if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. (5) Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. AR 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. The applicant was in an ELS status at the time of the initiation of the separation. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for the applicant’s character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant witnessed a battle buddy attempt suicide twice and the applicant requests an upgrade based on the VA rating. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge. 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: PTSD (70%SC); Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found service connection for PTSD with MDD establishes it is related to his military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has two BH conditions, PTSD and MDD, which mitigate his refusal to train and lack of reasonable effort given the association between PTSD/MDD and oppositional behavior. The additional misconduct of attempting to go AWOL is also mitigated by the diagnosis of PTSD/MDD given the association between PTSD/MDD and avoidant behavior. PTSD and MDD, however, do not mitigate the applicant engaging in a physical altercation with another soldier nor do they mitigate making racially disparaging remarks directed at the other soldier as neither condition affects one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and MDD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – refusal to train, engaging in a physical altercation with another soldier or making racially disparaging remarks directed at the other soldier – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the applicant witnessed a battle buddy attempt suicide twice and the applicant requests an upgrade based on VA rating. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Army when determining a member’s discharge characterization. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence of in- service mitigating factors and determined that that the applicant's PTSD does not mitigate the totality of the applicant's misconduct (specifically physical altercation with another Soldier). c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because the applicant’s diagnosis does not mitigate the totality of the misconduct. Since the applicant was discharged for refusal to train in an entry level status, Uncharacterized is proper and equitable. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210010518 1