1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 12 February 2022 b. Date Received: 11 April 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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and a separation code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the supporting documents and character references more than adequately prove the applicant made changes to be better and to better the career. The applicant was used as a pawn to flex power, even though toxic leadership was a problem. The applicant’s questions were never answered. The applicant made mistakes but proved more than the applicant’s counterparts the applicant deserved to stay in the Army and to become better. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 14 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635-200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 15 October 2021 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided documents which are described below in 3c(2). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The AMHRR if void of the Notification of Separation; however, the Memorandum, subject: Notification to Appear Before an Administrative Separation Board, dated 23 April 2021 (one page), reflects, in part, the hearing was to determine whether the applicant should be discharged for the following reasons: On 22 October 2020, a Bar to Continued Service was initiated on the applicant. On 14 January 2021, a second 3-month review was conducted and the applicant failed to overcome the Bar to Continue to Service. On 16 July 2020, the applicant was notified to submit a Family Care Plan within 30 days and was given an additional 30 days. The applicant failed to provide a Family Care Plan. On 4 August 2020, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order from Captain A. M., the superior commissioned officer to submit the applicant’s continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine SD cards. On 7 July 2020, the applicant was derelict and the performance of duties by failing to pick up vehicle parts and perform preventive maintenance checks and services on the applicant’s assigned motor pool vehicle. On 18 August 2020, the applicant received a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) in which the applicant was rated as not meeting the standard and not qualified. The applicant led the applicant’ Soldiers only when supervised and lacked the self-discipline and professional competence to work independently. On 3 April 2018, the applicant had not maintained qualification or progression in the military occupational specialty (MOS), making the applicant unable to perform the duties as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operator. On 3 April 2020, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general order, Army Regulation 670-1, dated 25 May 2017, by not keeping a clean shaved face or clean uniform. (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: 22 April 2014 / 6 years / The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the initial enlistment period. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 15W20, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator / 7 years, 5 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 November 2013 – 21 April 2014 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (19 December 2016 – 13 July 2017) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM -2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of the second ARCOM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2019 – 3 July 2019 / Qualified 4 July 2019 – 3 July 2020 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Orders 209-0004, dated 28 July 2021, amended by Orders, 214-0002, dated 2 August 2021, and Orders 221-0006, dated 9 August 2021, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 15 October 2021 from the Regular Army. The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, with a narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Performance. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant provided (with pen and ink comments in rebuttal): Notification to Appear as described in previous paragraph 3c. Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), dated 3 August 2021, reflects the applicant’s flag for KA, Army Body Composition Program, was removed effective 3 August 2021. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for, but not limited to: Dereliction in duties as an NCO; Being recommended for bar to reenlistment; Three month review of Bar to Continued Services; Failure to manage personal affairs; Failure to provide family care plan missed appointments and requirements for convalescent leave; and failure to uphold duties and responsibilities of additional duty master driver. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; promotion orders; Family Care Plan packet; six Developmental Counseling Forms; medical documents; Memorandum, subject: Notification to Appear Before an Administrative Separation board; SMS messages; Enlisted Record Brief; and two character references. 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), 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) Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, 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. (4) Paragraph 13-8, prescribes for the service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. 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. 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. 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 a narrative reason change and a separation code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant provided one page of the notice to appear before the administrative separation board, which provided some information regarding what led to the discharge. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with an honorable. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and the separation code is “JHJ.” 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 13, is “JHJ.” The applicant contends the leadership created a toxic environment and used the applicant as a pawn. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the toxic leadership. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): N/A. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): N/A. 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 the leadership created a toxic environment and used the applicant as a pawn. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR, applicant-provided evidence, or in the applicant’s testimony to show that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour in Afghanistan. The Board considered this contention, including applicant’s six years of service and numerous awards. The Board found that applicant’s service was properly characterized as Honorable. The Board also found that applicant’s unsatisfactory performance reason for discharge was proper given the record indicating applicant’s difficulty managing personal affairs. (3) The applicant contends the narrative reason and associated SPD code for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention but found that applicant’s unsatisfactory performance reason for discharge was proper given the record indicating applicant’s difficulty managing personal affairs. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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 not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because the applicant already holds an Honorable characterization and no further upgrade is available. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code 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. ? 11. 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 AR20220007426 1