IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 28 June 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000666


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his characterization of service from under 
other than honorable conditions to honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, 16 March 2023

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:  

   a.  He is humbly requesting consideration of an upgrade of his other than honorable 
discharge, which he received due to not returning to his unit in Germany. He states, 
after returning from a 16-month deployment in Iraq the unit was granted two weeks of 
leave. He chose to visit his family, and while at home he was dealing with depression, 
anxiety, and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). He has been dealing with these 
issues for many years. Because of these issues, he wrongfully did not return to his unit 
by the scheduled return date.

	b.  He signed into to Fort Hamilton, NY three weeks after he was scheduled to return 
to his unit in Germany. He explained the situation and he was eventually discharged 
under other than honorable conditions. He humbly requests that an upgrade of his 
discharge is considered. He realizes that the way he handled the situation with PTSD 
after the deployment, was not the proper way. 

3.  The applicant provides his VA disability rating decision, dated 16 March 2023, which 
shows he was service connected for treatment for PTSD (also claimed as anxiety and 
depression). It was granted because his records show a current diagnosis for PTSD, 
which is linked to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity in Iraq. 

4.  A review of the applicant's service record reflects the following documents:

	a.  DD Form 4 (Enlistment Document) shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular 
Army on 8 August 2005. 

	b.  DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), shows his duty status changed from present 
for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL) on 16 January 2008 and then from 
AWOL to dropped from rolls (DFR) on 15 February 2008. He surrendered to miliary 
authorities at Fort Hamilton, NY on 16 April 2008 and was transferred to the Personnel 
Control Facility at Fort Knox, KY. 

	c.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 24 April 2008. His 
DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with one specification of being 
AWOL from on or about 16 January 2008 to on or about 16 April 2008.

	d.  On 24 April 2008, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 
requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under Army Regulation (AR) 635-
200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In doing so, he 
acknowledged that the charges preferred against him under the Uniformed Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable 
discharge. He further acknowledged: 

*	he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for 
discharge;
*	he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it by submitting 
the request;
*	by submitting the request, he was acknowledging he was guilty of the
charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained 
which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable 
discharge;
*	he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for 
he had no desire to perform further military service;
*	he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be 
deprived of many or all Army benefits;
*	he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran’s 
Administration;
*	he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both 
Federal and State law;
*	encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than 
honorable discharge;
*	he was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf, 
and elected not to do so;

	e.  On 30 April 2008, the immediate commander recommended approval of the 
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with characterization of service 
under other than honorable conditions. 

	f.  On 19 May 2008, the separation authority approved the recommended discharge, 
directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and be issued an under 
other than honorable conditions discharge. 

	g.  The applicant was discharged on 11 June 2008. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions 
of AR 635-200, chapter 10, in the lowest enlisted grade, and his service was 
characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 2 years, 7 
months, and 4 days of net active service during the covered period and had lost time 
from 16 January 2008 to 15 April 2008. Additionally, his DD Form 214 shows in: 

*	Item 3 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded 
or Authorized) lists the Iraq Campaign Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National 
Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon
*	Item 18 (Remarks) shows the applicant did not complete his first full term of 
service. It shows service in Iraq from 4 October 2006 to 19 December 2007. 
*	Item 26 (Separation Code):  KFS
*	Item 27 (Reentry Code):  3


5.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his characterization of service from under 
other than honorable conditions to honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 
He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD. 
    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The 
applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 8 August 2005; 2) DA Forms 4187 
(Personnel Action), shows his duty status changed from present for duty (PDY) to 
absent without leave (AWOL) on 16 January 2008 and then from AWOL to dropped 
from rolls (DFR) on 15 February 2008. He surrendered to miliary authorities at Fort 
Hamilton, NY on 16 April 2008 and was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility at 
Fort Knox, KY; 3) Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 24 April 
2008. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with one specification of 
being AWOL from on or about 16 January 2008 to on or about 16 April 2008; 4) The 
applicant was discharged on 11 June 2008. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-
200, chapter 10, in the lowest enlisted grade, and his service was characterized as 
under other than honorable conditions. 
    c.  The military electronic medical record, AHLTA, VA electronic medical record, JLV, 
ROP, and casefiles were reviewed.  A review of AHLTA was void of any BH-related 
treatment history for the applicant.  A review of JLV showed the applicant service-
connected for treatment only for PTSD. Records appear to show the applicant’s first 
BH-related engagement with the VA occurred at the NY VA on 15 April 2008, whereby 
the applicant was seen in the ED after verbalizing suicidal ideation and homicidal 
thoughts if he were returned to Germany.  He reported feeling abused by his company 
while serving in Iraq and was currently AWOL. He also reported stress, combat related 
nightmares, and a history of having received BH treatment in Iraq via antidepressant 
and sleep medication.  This advisor was unable to find any history of BH treatment for 
the applicant while deployed. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment reaction 
with Anxious Mood, rule-out Depressive Disorder NOS, and offered psychiatric 
admission and medication management; he declined both.  The applicant accepted a 
follow-up appointment, but records show he failed to show.  Records showed the 
applicant attempted to re-engage the VA for BH-related care on or about 2 September 
2008 but due to the status of his discharge was deemed ineligible. Records showed VA 
Social Workers/Case Managers advised the applicant on several occasions between 2 
September 2008 and 19 October 2009 of his healthcare options and the process for 
upgrading his discharge.  
    d.  The applicant next BH-related engagement appears to have occurred on 13 
September 2022 whereby the applicant was seen in the VA ED requesting he be 
connected to BH for treatment of anxiety, depression, nightmares, and flashbacks 
secondary to trauma experienced during Iraq. He reported witnessing multiple injuries 
and multiple exposure to mortar attacks.  He also reported being treated in the VA’s 
PTSD Clinic in 2008.  The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, started on psychotropic 
medication, and referred for outpatient treatment in the PTSD Clinic. Encounter note 
dated 13 September 2022 showed the applicant was seen in the PTSD Clinic and 
reported a history of chronic PTSD, depression, and anxiety with 1 prior voluntary 
psychiatric admission.  The applicant was noted to have been currently unemployed 
and living in a homeless shelter.  The provider conducted medication reconciliation and 
referred the applicant for continued outpatient treatment. Records showed the applicant 
has consistently remained in outpatient treatment for PTSD, MDD, and Anxiety 
Disorder, via individual and group therapy, and medication management through 20 
June 2023. A VA Decision Letter, dated 16 March 2023, showed the applicant SC for 
treatment only for PTSD.  
    e.  The applicant is requesting upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable or 
under honorable conditions, general. He contends his misconduct was related to PTSD.  
A review of the records showed that while on active duty, and in an AWOL status, the 
applicant was seen at the VA and diagnosed with Adjustment Reaction with Anxious 
Mood, with a rule-out of Depressive Disorder NOS.  Post-service records showed the 
applicant diagnosed by the VA with PTSD related to combat exposure in Iraq, MDD, 
and Anxiety Disorder.  A VA Decision Letter, dated 16 March 2023, showed the 
applicant SC for treatment only for PTSD.  As there is an association between PTSD 
and avoidant behavior, to include going AWOL, there is a nexus between the applicant’s 
diagnosis of PTSD and misconduct characterized by AWOL.  As such, under liberal 
consideration guidance, it is the opinion of this advisor that the applicant’s misconduct 
was mitigated by his disorder.
    f.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that 
there is sufficient evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or 
experience during his time in service that mitigated his misconduct.   
    
Kurta Questions:
1.	Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant is SC for treatment 
only of PTSD

2.	Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The 
condition is related to deployment in Iraq 

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Yes.  The applicant is requesting upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to 
honorable or under honorable conditions, general. He contends his 
misconduct was related to PTSD.  A review of the records showed that while 
on active duty, and in an AWOL status, the applicant was seen at the VA and 
diagnosed with Adjustment Reaction with Anxious Mood, with a rule-out of 
Depressive Disorder NOS.  Post-service records showed the applicant 
diagnosed by the VA with PTSD related to combat exposure in Iraq, MDD, 
and Anxiety Disorder.  A VA Decision Letter, dated 16 March 2023, showed 
the applicant SC for treatment only for PTSD.  As there is an association 
between PTSD and avoidant behavior, to include going AWOL, there is a 
nexus between the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and misconduct 
characterized by AWOL.  As such, under liberal consideration guidance, it is 
the opinion of this advisor that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by 
his disorder.




BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief 
was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, 
documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and 
standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his 
characterization of service. The Board noted there is a nexus between the applicant’s 
diagnosis of PTSD and misconduct characterized by AWOL. Upon review of the 
applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred 
with the advisory official who found sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for 
the misconduct to weigh a clemency determination. The Board found that relief was 
warranted based upon guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:X	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant’s 
DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 June 2008 showing his character of service as 
under honorable conditions (General).
	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to 
timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of 
enlisted personnel. 

	a. Chapter 10 provided that a Soldier who had committed an offense or offenses, for 
which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, 
may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Commanders will 
ensure that a Soldier will not be coerced into submitting a request for discharge in lieu 
of trial by court-martial. After receiving counseling, the Soldier may elect to submit a 
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Soldier will sign a written 
request, certifying that he or she has been counseled, understands his or her rights, 
may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and understands the 
adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences. This paragraph 
also provides that the Soldier's written request will also include an acknowledgement 
that the Soldier understands the elements of the offense(s) charged and is guilty of the 
charge(s) or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorize(s) 
the imposition of a punitive discharge. A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged for the good of the 
Service. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge certificate if 
such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. For 
Soldiers who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as 
honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that 
any other characterization clearly would be improper. 

	b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable 
characterization 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 than honorable characterization would be 
clearly inappropriate. 

	c.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions 
and when authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but 
not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of 
under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's 
separation specifically allows such characterization. 

	d.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative 
separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for 
misconduct or for the good of the service when the reason for separation is based upon 
one or more acts or omissions that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct 
expected of Soldiers of the Army.

3.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, 
provided that enlisted Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 
10 for the Good of the Service in lieu of court-martial would receive a separation code of 
"KFS."

4.  AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility 
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, 
U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Table 3-1 provides a list of RE codes.

*	RE code "1" applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service, who are 
considered qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met
*	RE code "2" is no longer in use but applied to Soldiers separated for the 
convenience of the government, when reenlistment is not contemplated, who are 
fully qualified for enlistment/reenlistment
*	RE code "3" applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry 
or continuous service at time of separation, whose disqualification is waivable; 
they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted
*	RE code "4" applies to Soldiers separated from last period of service with a non-
waivable disqualification

5.  On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; 
sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to 
Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole 
or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence 
sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences 
presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the 
discharge.

6.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. 
Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards 
for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-
martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing 
in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a 
discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance 
does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to guide Boards in 
application of their equitable relief authority. 

	a.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or 
clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external 
evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and 
behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant 
error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. 

	b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.

7.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including 
summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the 
Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as 
authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by 
ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are 
therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide 
copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory 
opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants 
(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230000666


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1