1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 June 2022 b. Date Received: 27 June 2022 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there was a demotion and discharge with only about 9 months left on a 6-year contract for failing to go to drills. The applicant reports being in the middle of a divorce due to a child being molested. The applicant did not trust leaving the children with anyone and could not bring them to drill. The applicant contends there was honorable service and was promoted on time and had been recommended for an award. The applicant contends there was sacrifices made to become and to remain a Soldier. The applicant feels an honorable discharge was taken away. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted on 1 August 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge to include the applicant's family issues, and the applicant's post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). As there were no SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. Please see Section 10 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: 16 March 2013 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: 11 March 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 January 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 5 years, 2 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 15 January 2008 to 3 March 2008 / NA ADT, 4 March 2008 to 22 November 2008 / 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: DD Form 293, an unidentified document 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 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's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 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 13-070-00032, dated 11 March 2013. 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 contends there was a demotion and discharge with only about 9 months left on a 6- year contract for failing to go to drills. The applicant reports being in the middle of a divorce due to a child being molested and the applicant did not trust leaving the children with anyone and could not bring them to drill. The applicant states there was honorable service and promotions occurred on time. There was also a recommendation for an award. The applicant contends there was sacrifices made to become and to remain a Soldier. The applicant feels an honorable discharge was taken away. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of the service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant and character witness(es) provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. 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 there was a demotion and discharge with only about 9 months left on a 6-year contract for failing to go to drills. The Board considered the totality of the service during deliberations and determined that the applicant's length of service was one of the reasons that relief was warranted. (2) The applicant reports being in the middle of a divorce due to a child being molested and the applicant did not trust leaving the children with anyone and could not bring them to drill. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service for this reason, in addition to, the applicant's length of service and post service accomplishments were determining factors which outweighed the accepted basis of separation - Unsatisfactory Participation. (3) The applicant contends there was honorable service. The Board considered but found an upgrade to Honorable not supported by the evidence of record. The Honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of accept conduct and performance of duty or is otherwise meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. The Board found that the applicant's service, given the nature of the misconduct, including not attending drills which the Board used as the accepted basis for separation, was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge to include the applicant's family issues, and the applicant's post service accomplishments. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge to include the applicant's family issues, and the applicant's post service accomplishments. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the accepted reason the applicant was discharged - unsatisfactory participation - was both proper and equitable. (3) As there were no SPD Codes/RE-codes listed on the applicant's discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army Reserves, no upgrade actions are required for these items. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General (Under Honorable Conditions) c. 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 AR20220005618 1