1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 12 September 2022 b. Date Received: 19 September 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. 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 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, the applicant received and acknowledged an honorable DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that was a “worksheet” and actually received a general discharge DD Form 214. The copies of the separation file provided by the applicant came from the applicant’s file, however the applicant did not get to review or sign it. The applicant states the Veterans Affairs (VA) tested and diagnosed the applicant with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), however, the applicant believes this diagnosis should have been given while on active duty but was sabotaged by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) that the applicant relates to being harassed by. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 May 2023, and by 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 May 2017 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(1) through (6). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant provided the acknowledgement of receipt of separation notice memorandum, however it was not signed by the applicant or dated. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On multiple occasions, between on or about 4 November 2015 and 7 February 2017, the applicant failed to be at the applicant’s appointed place of duty. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, between on or about 18 September 2015 and 10 February 2017, the applicant lied to NCOs, failed to follow orders and instructions, and misplaced sensitive items. Only page one of the commander’s separation notification was provided by the applicant which does not include a signature. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 June 2013 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68J10, Medical Logistics Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 9 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: Dep 9 May 2012-17 June 2013 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NA f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: There is no record of any negative counseling’s or action under the uniform code of military justice; however, the applicant’s enlisted record brief reflects the applicant was reduced from the rank of E-4 to E-3; effective 11 March 2016. The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service, however, it appears that there is no other evidence in the AMHRR that the applicant reenlisted. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with a narrative reason of Pattern of Misconduct. The DD Form 214 was authenticated with the applicant’s electronic signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: A Mental Disorders (other than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and eating disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 10 January 2017, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD. The questionnaire documents the applicant stated also show the applicant have been diagnosed with ADHD between the ages of five through eight. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214 member 1 and 4; DD Form 214WS; copies of partial case separation packet not signed; DD Form 4; DD Form 5490; DA Form 5691; VA medical center letter; VA mental health diagnosis; self-authored statement; eleven third party letters; Email; military award. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently a police officer. 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) 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) 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. (5) 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. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discre 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 “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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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. The applicant’s AMHRR, 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. 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 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 discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, 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 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, 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, 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, in effect, the applicant received and acknowledged a DD Form 214 with an honorable characterization of service that was stamped “worksheet,” however the applicant received a general discharge DD Form 214 that was electronically signed by the applicant on 24 May 2017. The applicant provided partial copies of the separation file, however there are no signatures by the applicant or commander. The applicant provided an Army Achievement Medal certificate, dated 31 March 2015, that reflects the applicant was selected as the Yuma Proving Ground Fiscal Year 15 Soldier of the Quarter. The available record 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, in effect, that the applicant was harassed by an NCO in which the NCO prevented entry into the Army Reserve. The applicant provided an email from the applicant’s unit administrative assistant, dated 17 May 2017, that recommended the applicant be escorted through installation clearing to ensure the applicant is taken care of and not just thrown under the bus to get everything done by 26 May 2017. The applicant provided a DD Form 5490 (Reserve Components Career Counselor Interview Record), dated 18 May 2017, reflecting an honorable discharge. The applicant provided a DD Form 4 (Reenlistment/Enlistment Document Armed Forces of the U.S.) that shows the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for 3 years on 18 May 2017, it is certified by the service representative, however this form was not certified by the enlistment/reenlistment officer. The applicant also provided DA Form 5691 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment Orders), dated 18 May 2017, reflecting the applicant would be assigned to a Reserve unit after completion of active service with 3 years remaining military service obligation. The AMHRR nor the applicant produced evidence that the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The DD Form 214 in the AMHRR reflects the applicant was not transferred to the Reserve. The applicant contends, in effect, the VA tested and diagnosed the applicant with ADHD, however, the applicant believes this diagnosis should have been given while on active duty but was sabotaged by an NCO. The applicant provided a Mental Disorders (other than PTSD and Eating Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 10 January 2017, that reflects the applicant was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD. The questionnaire documents the applicant stated to also have been diagnosed with ADHD between the ages of five through eight. The applicant did not submit any evidence of an NCO sabotaging the applicant’s medical records, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: Adjustment Disorder, GAD, and ADHD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and ADHD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that if the basis for separation is agreed to be FTRs, lying, failure to follow orders, and misplacing sensitive items, these would not be mitigated by an Adjustment Disorder, GAD, or ADHD. Specifically, an Adjustment Disorder is a temporary, low-level difficulty adjusting and/or coping with stress that does not impact cognitive abilities. In terms of GAD, although anxiety symptoms can impact performance, available medical records do not support the applicant’s symptoms rose to a level of impairment influencing the possible misconduct. Lastly, although ADHD symptoms can also impact performance, both an ADHD assessment in-service and the applicant noted any concentration symptoms were stress related, occasional, and unrelated to the misconduct. The diagnoses referenced above would not impact the applicant’s ability to recognize they was struggling after the initial disciplinary actions and utilize the supports applicant was engaged with to arrive at solutions rather than repeat misconduct. (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 Adjustment Disorder and ADHD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – FTRs, lying, failure to follow orders, and misplacing sensitive items – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having received and acknowledged an honorable DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that was a “worksheet” and actually received a general discharge DD Form 214. The Board considered this contention and determined a valid DD214 in the file shows applicant received a General discharge, the is insufficient evidence in the file to support the applicant was to receive an Honorable discharge. (2) The applicant contends having been sabotaged by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) that the applicant relates to being harassed by. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant was sabotaged and harassed by an NCO, which resulted in a General Discharge. 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’s adjustment disorder and ADHD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of FTRs, lying, failure to follow orders, and misplacing sensitive items. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding being sabotaged and harassed by a noncommissioned officer and found that totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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 that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to 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. ? 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 AR20220009219 1