1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 2022 b. Date Received: 6 July 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was discharged because the applicant failed to maintain qualification for the military occupational specialty and refused to reclassify. The applicant contends the discharge was based, in part, on the fact the applicant was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial on 30 September 2019. In that case the applicant entered into a plea agreement in which the applicant pled guilty to all charges and in return, the convening authority agreed not to use the charges and specifications as a basis of an administrative separation, but the chain of command seemed to factor in the Court-Martial conviction when making the decision about an appropriate discharge. The applicant contends, if the applicant had maintained MOS qualification, the applicant would have received an honorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted on 10 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 September 2021 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 August 2021 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to maintain MOS qualification and refused to reclassify. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 September 2021 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 September 2016 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / Bachelor's Degree / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15Y10, AH-64D ARM/EL/AV System / 5 years, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, ASR, Basic Aviation Badge g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provides a Plea Agreement, dated 26 August 2019, which reflects the applicant pled guilty and admitted being guilty of the offense for which the applicant was being charged. In exchange the convening authority agreed, in part, not to use the charges and specification as the basis of an administrative discharge. 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 293, personal statement, Plea Agreement, Memorandum, subject: Separation Under AR 635-200..., dated 17 August 2021, MILPER Message Number 20-036, Verification of Employment, letters of support-4. 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) Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that 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. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's service AMHRR is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 13, by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, the discharge was based, in part, on the fact the applicant was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial on 30 September 2019. In that case the applicant entered into a plea agreement in which the applicant pled guilty to all charges and in return, the convening authority agreed not to use the charges and specifications as a basis of an administrative separation, but the chain of command seemed to factor in the Court-Martial conviction when making the decision about an appropriate discharge. The AMHRR reflects the basis for the discharge was due to applicant failure to maintain MOS qualification and refusal to reclassify. The applicant contends, if the applicant had maintained MOS qualification, the applicant would have received an honorable discharge. The 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. 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): N/A The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence. b. 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? 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: Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Other mixed anxiety disorders; PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Other mixed anxiety disorders were diagnosed while applicant was on active duty. VA service connection for PTSD establishes it occurred on active duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA, this diagnosis does not mitigate the applicant's offenses of obstruction of justice, making a false official statement, failing to maintain MOS qualification, and refusing to reclassify into another MOS given that PTSD does not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. There is no indication in the applicant's medical records that applicant's condition of PTSD impacted reality testing or affected judgment in any way. (Note: the diagnoses of Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and Other mixed anxiety disorders are subsumed under the diagnosis of PTSD). (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 associated adjustment, anxiety, and depressed mood disorders, outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - failure to maintain MOS qualification and refusal to reclassify - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant's discharge was based, in part, on the fact the applicant was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial on 30 September 2019. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service based on the applicant's testimony, and quality and length of service. (2) The applicant contends, if the applicant had maintained MOS qualification, the applicant would have received an honorable discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's testimony, and quality and length of service mitigating the basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the characterization of service was found to be inequitable based on the applicant's testimony, in addition to the length and quality of the applicant's service, mitigating the basis for applicant's separation - failure to maintain MOS qualification and refusal to reclassify. 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 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20220009840 1