1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 11 August 2022 b. Date Received: 15 August 20222 c. Counsel: Yes 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the command made an error in discretion. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 5 June 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: Substandard Performance / AR 600-8- 24, Chapter 4-2A / JHK / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 28 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 September 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to Show Cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a for substandard performance of duty based on two consecutives failed APFT, which took place on 5 January 2016 and 10 February 2016. (3) GOSA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 24 March 2016 / Honorable (4) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: On 13 September 2016, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a. (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 September 2016 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 25 May 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 30 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / None / 8 years, 9 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 October 2006 – 7 December 2010 / HD USAR Control Group, 8 December 2010 - 9 April 2012 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / Iraq (15 June 2008 - 21 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Message, subject: Officer Elimination- Probationary, dated 14 September 2016, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation. Applicant will be discharged with an Honorable characterization of service. Authority for separation will cite this message and Chap 4, AR 600- 8-24, 4-2b for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction of duty. SPD code will be JNC IAW AR 635-05-01. 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. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Paragraph 4-2a, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for substandard performance of duty. 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 “JHK” as the appropriate code to assign to officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a, substandard performance. 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance," and the separation code is "JHK." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the 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 or separation code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the command made an error in discretion. 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 b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): N/A c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): Applicant, character witness (J.F.), and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence. 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: Asperger’s Syndrome, now Autism Level 1; Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held a pre-enlistment diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, now Autism Level 1, which is a lifelong condition. In-service, applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the diagnoses are unrelated, failing the APFT is not a progression or sequela of the diagnoses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the command made an error in discretion. The Board considered this contention and determined that there was no evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant provided evidence to show that the command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Board determined that the reason for applicant’s separation was proper and equitable under AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a(10) – “when no medical problems exist, and an officer has two consecutive failures of the APFT, elimination action will be initiated.” Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends that the narrative reason for discharge should be changed from Substandard Performance. The Board considered this contention, but ultimately determined that applicant’s APFT testing and failures were performed within regulatory standard. Therefore, the Substandard Performance narrative reason is proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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. (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. ? 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 AR20220011024 1