1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 November 2016 b. Date Received: 15 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. Although going AWOL was inexcusable, the applicant states that he was having a hard time reintegrating back into garrison. The applicant was also having family issues, which led to a divorce, as well as issues in his unit. The applicant further states, at the time, it was an escape. He was not himself; he contemplated suicide. The applicant believes that his PTSD was the reason for his actions, although he did not know he was suffering from it at the time. The applicant is now receiving treatment from the VA and believes that he did more good in his time in the Army, earning several medals and to include the Iraq Campaign Medal. He would like the Board to know that since his discharge, he has earned his Associate's Degree and has had no run-ins with law enforcement. He has become an active member in his community coaching youth sports. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has two Behavioral Health conditions (PTSD & TBI) which are mitigating for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors and TBI is associated with impaired judgment, there is a nexus between these conditions and the offense of being Absent Without Leave. Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while on Active Duty. The following symptoms were documented: anger, numbing, insomnia, flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, irritability, sleep disturbances. Applicant also incurred a concussion in August 2009. Was a gunner in a MRAP which rolled over. He had transient loss of consciousness, headache, and backache. MACE (Military Acute Concussion Event) score was 21/30 (score under 25 indicates need for further assessment). However, there is no documentation in AHLTA of applicant ever receiving follow up treatment for his concussion. AHLTA notes also document that applicant was unfairly treated by his Command after turning himself in for AWOL. In his Chapter 14-12c Mental Status Evaluation dated 29 December 2011, the following note is documented in AHLTA: "SM is being seen for Chapter 14-12c eval; SM was AWOL from 08/10 to 11/11; SM returned to take care of AWOL status on his own accord; SM stated approximately 3 weeks after he returned, he was considered high risk and was moved into barracks; finance paperwork has been delayed and he has not been paid; SM stated there are days he goes without eating due to not having money; SM stated he has made his CoC aware of the problems but they don't seem to care. Today, according to SM, his escort was to take him to Finance prior to bringing him to Behavioral Health for chapter paperwork. Escort brought him to clinic and verbal and physical altercation occurred. SM stated he got into escort's face and yelled at him but denied physically touching escort; escort punched him in face several times and threw him to the ground. MPs were called and took statements. Another NCO came and took SM to Finance before escorting him back to clinic". The VA has rated the applicant as 70 percent service-connected for PTSD, 30 percent service-connected for Migraines with TBI, 20 percent service-connected for lumbar issues, 10 percent service- connected for tinnitus, and 10 percent service-connected for hypertension. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his AWOL and discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of PTSD, VA rating - 70 percent and TBI, VA rating - 30 percent), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (AWOL) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c(1) / JKD / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2007 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 5 years, 8 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 July 2006 to 29 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (18 March 2007 to 4 June 2008 and 5 May 2009 to 5 May 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet, dated 24 September 2010, reflects the applicant was charged with Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article (not specified on form) Specification: In that, on or about 23 September 2010 without authority and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently, absent himself from his unit, and did remain so absent in desertion until on or about Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (AWOL) Specification: In that, on or about 24 August 2010 without authority and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently absent himself from his unit, and did remain so absent in desertion until on or about 23 September 2010. Two Personnel Action forms, dated 25 August 2010 and 23 September 2010, reflect the applicant's duty status changed from "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 23 September 2010 and from "DFR" to "PDY," effective 23 September 2010. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 29 November 2011, reflects the applicant was "DFR" on 23 September 2010 and returned to military control on 28 November 2011. The applicant surrendered to military authorities. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 461 days (AWOL, 24 August 2010 to 23 September 2010 and 23 September 2010 to 28 November 2011) / surrendered to military authorities both times (Note: The applicant's DD Form 214 does not reflect lost time; however, based on the applicant's service record, he had two periods of AWOL.) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Disability Rating Decision letter, dated 24 February 2014, reflects the applicant was assigned a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD, 30 percent for Migraines associated with traumatic brain injury, and10 percent for Hypertension. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant earned his Associate's Degree and has had no run-ins with law enforcement. He has become an active member in his community coaching youth sports. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c(1) allows for an absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion to be separated for commission of a serious offense. 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), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about having troubles after reintegrating after deployment were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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 contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service-connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and circumstances surrounding his AWOL and discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of PTSD, VA rating - 70 percent and TBI, VA rating - 30 percent), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160002424 1