1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 August 2021 b. Date Received: 19 August 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason for separation change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was not notified of being released from reserve status. The applicant never signed any document acknowledging receipt of paperwork on a court martial or discharge. The rank they put on documents at time of discharge were wrong. The unit was a terrible unit and did not care for their soldiers. One of the applicant's superiors, SFC R, was under investigation for forging the signature of their then CPT T. and putting out other Soldiers. The applicant was surprisingly kicked out for Unsatisfactory Participation after over a year of trying to make contact with somebody at the unit. The applicant called for drill schedules, as one was not provided, but unit phones went unanswered. It got expensive to drive four hours one way to a vacant unit. The applicant did attend training and APFT's. The applicant would love to be active duty in the Army and was trying to transition, but unit leadership would not assist. The applicant loved wearing the uniform and serving the country and would give anything to be able to continue serving advancing a military career. In a records review conducted on 23 March 2022, 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 April 2018 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: 16 December 2016 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / 11 years / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Culinary Specialist / 1 year, 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 16 December 2016 to 9 January 2017 / NA ADT, 10 January 2017 to 23 May 2017 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored letter; DA Form 4187 for promotion; and Discharge Orders 18-100-00028. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since being out of the military, has gotten a job as a wind technician and now owns a vehicle, but still wants to be on Active Duty in the Army. 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 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. (1) Paragraph 2-7, prescribes possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. (2) Paragraph 2-8, prescribes the characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason for separation change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant's discharge from the United States Army Reserve. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted discharge order: Orders 18-100-00028, dated 10 April 2018. The order indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135- 178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was not notified of being released from reserve status. The applicant never signed any document acknowledging receipt of paperwork on a court martial or discharge. The rank they put on documents at time of discharge were wrong. The unit was a terrible unit and did not care for their soldiers. One of the applicant's superiors, SFC R, was under investigation for forging the signature of their then CPT T. and putting out other Soldiers. The applicant was surprisingly kicked out for Unsatisfactory Participation after over a year of trying to make contact with somebody at the unit. The applicant called for drill schedules, as one was not provided, but unit phones went unanswered. It got expensive to drive four hours one way to a vacant unit. The applicant did attend training and APFT's. The applicant would love to be active duty in the Army and was trying to transition, but unit leadership would not assist. The applicant loved wearing the uniform and serving the country and would give anything to be able to continue serving advancing a military career. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. Orders are published when service members are discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve, which indicate the effective date and characterization of the discharge. Narrative reasons usually are not included in the order. In insomuch as the applicant's discharge order does not have these elements, the ADRB has no basis for changing the discharge order. If the applicant desires to rejoin the military, local recruiters can determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility. 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was not notified of being released from reserve status. The applicant never signed any document acknowledging receipt of paperwork on a court martial or discharge. The merit of this contention cannot be determined due to the absence of the separation packet in official records. The Board supported the equitable discharge of the applicant due to intentionally missing prior drills, as outlined in applicant's statement. (2) The unit was a terrible unit and did not care for their soldiers. The rank they put on documents at time of discharge were wrong. One of the applicant's superiors, SFC R, was under investigation for forging the signature of their then CPT T. and putting out other Soldiers. The Board considered this contention, but found insufficient evidence to support it. The Board determined the Command did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The applicant was surprisingly kicked out for Unsatisfactory Participation after over a year of trying to make contact with somebody at the unit. The applicant called for drill schedules, as one was not provided, but unit phones went unanswered. It got expensive to drive four hours one way to a vacant unit. The applicant did attend training and APFT's. The merit of this contention cannot be determined due to the applicant not providing evidence to support the claims. There is no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Board supported the equitable discharge of the applicant due to intentionally missing prior drills, as outlined in applicant's statement. 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 there were no mitigating factors for the Board to consider, as the applicant was discharged for missing drills, which the applicant admitted to in a self-authored statement. 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 AR20220000118 1