1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 9 January 2015 b. Date Received: 16 January 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was the result of going AWOL after returning from deployment to Kuwait. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he feared a second deployment was imminent and was unable to bring himself to go through it again. After his discharge he suffered severe anxiety and battled alcoholism for the next eight years. He has been able to control his anxiety through therapy andbeat alcoholism after his pancreas had shut down and he was near death. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant’s file revealed no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions(s) for charge of AWOL. There were no Active duty electronic medical records available for the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 August 2000 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 19 May 1999, charges were preferred against the applicant. (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, which indicates the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 4 August 1998 until apprehended by civilian authorities on 8 May 1999 at Anderson, Indiana. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 19 May 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 17 June 1997 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / 11M10, Fighting Vehicle Infantryman / 2 years, 4 months, and 24 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time: The applicant’s record of service indicates 277 days of time lost for going AWOL from 4 August 1998 until his return on 7 May 1999. The DD Form 214 under review also indicated 456 days of excess leave 20 May 1999-17 August 2000. j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of a DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014, by implication provided the same guidance to the Service Discharge Review Boards whose decisions are reviewable by the Service Correction Boards. That memorandum provided PTSD or PTSD-related conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." However, the memorandum also states, "Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in the discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was the result of his fear of a second deployment and he was unable to bring himself to go through it again. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant also contends after his discharge, he suffered severe anxiety and battled alcoholism for the next eight years. He has been able to control his anxiety through therapy and was able to beat alcoholism after his pancreas shut down and was near death. The applicant’s contention is noted; however, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 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. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant’s file revealed no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions(s) for the charge of AWOL. There were no Active duty electronic medical records available for the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: A. ISSUE A NEW DD-214/ISSUE A NEW SEPARATION ORDER: NO B. CHANGE CHARACTERIZATION TO: NO CHANGE C. CHANGE REASON TO: NO CHANGE D. CHANGE SPD/RE CODE TO: NO CHANGE E. RESTORE GRADE TO: NO CHANGE AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150001368 4