1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 July 2015 b. Date Received: 27 July 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was going through a lot of depression during this period of his life. He informed his leaders of this but no one seemed to care. The priority at the time was deploying, not a Soldier being depressed. The applicant states he did not handle the situation well. He shut himself off in his room instead of reporting for duty and was reported as AWOL. He felt hopeless and had no one to turn to. His mother and grandfather were having serious health issues that also contributed to his mental state. Everything started going downhill and his psychological situation worsen. He lost trust in his Chain of Command and the counselors he sought for help. It was like he was in a world all by himself and no one outside of it could understand or help. Since his discharge, he moved to Tennessee where he began to attend church regularly, started to receive from his pastor of the church, and his life began to change for the better. He felt like himself again and could think clearly. He is grateful to God that he is finally feeling like the man he once was. The applicant states he could have made better choices and sought other ways to handle his depression, but when you are young, you do not know these things until it is too late. He really loved the Army and everything about it. He felt like he had a lot to prove and never wanted his Army career to end the way it did. He ask the Board to take everything he has written into consideration. He states everyone deserves a second chance in life and he prays that he will get that second chance to prove that he can be all he can be. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 4 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, on 3 April 2012. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, Absent Without Leave (nine specifications) Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation (one specification) (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 20 April 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 23 February 2009 / 3 years and 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 92G, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 11 months, and 5 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, KDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 4 February 2011, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey order, PEP Spice and drug paraphernalia (On Post) FG Article 15, dated 4 March 2011, for wrongfully possessing Spice. (4 February 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $864.00 per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty for 45 days. Ten DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 9 September 2011 and 22 February 2012, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 21 September 2011 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 22 September 2011 From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 13 October 2011 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 21 October 2011 From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 26 October 2011 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 28 October 2011 From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 30 January 2012 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 30 January 2012 From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 15 February 2012 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 21 February 2012 CG Article 15, dated 24 October 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (8 September 2011, 20 September 2011) and absenting himself from his unit without authority (21 - 22 September 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $429.00 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 30 January 2012, for absenting himself from his unit without authority (13 October 2011 - 28 October 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 8 February 2012, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared for administrative processing from a behavioral health perspective. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 28 February 2012, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Articles 86 and 92. Military Police Reports, dated between 8 November 2011 and 20 February 2012, showing several incidents of misconduct. Several DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling’s), dated between 5 November 2010 and 22 February 2012, for possession of spice, failing to obey an order or regulation, failing to report to his appointed place of duty on several occasions, going AWOL on several occasions, revocation of his pass privileges, and for bar to reenlistment and the appeals process. i. Lost Time: 98 days (AWOL, 21 September 2011 – 21 September 2011, 13– 20 October 2011, 26–27 October 2011, 10 November 2011 – 29 January 2012; and 15– 20 February 2012) 58 days (Military Confinement, 22 February 2012 – 20 April 2012). j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, dated 8 July 2015, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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), 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.” “Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service 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 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 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 at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that he was going through a lot of depression. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, the service record contains no evidence of depression and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that he was suffering with depression at the time of discharge or that his 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. The applicant contends that he informed his leaders of his depression; however, their priority at the time was deploying, not a Soldier being depressed. However, 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 applicant contends that his mother’s and grandfather’s health issues affected his mental status. While the applicant may believe his discharge was the result of his concern for family members, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant contends that at the time of discharge he was young. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was 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 (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training 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 MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150012505 1