1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 September 2015 b. Date Received: 25 September 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded based on he suffers from PTSD, depression and was under a lot of stress from his family at the time which was causing him not to make rational decisions. He believes the Army did not offer him an opportunity to be properly treated for his conditions. He contends a Chaplin indicated in a letter that he could be a risk if not treated and those warning signs were overlooked by his commander and he was released back to his unit. He believes had he been properly counseled and treated he would have been able to continue his exemplary service to the Army. Evidence in the record shows the applicant had a prior record review on 2 May 2012. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's file includes a behavioral health diagnosis which may have been mitigating for the offense leading to the separation. The applicant had a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the VA. The PTSD may have existed in a subclinical state while the applicant was still on active duty. During that time he was diagnosed with Anxiety with Depression. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidance behavior, there is a possible nexus between the applicant's PTSD and his AWOL. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and hearing his testimony, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., in service diagnosis of mitigating behavioral health conditions, anxiety and depression), and his post service mitigating diagnosis of PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, in a personal appearance review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board further determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-5/SGT. Furthermore, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. (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: 14 August 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 2 July 2009, charges were preferred (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, which indicates the applicant was charged with going AWOL x2 19 March 2009-22 April 2009 and 2 May 2009-1 July 2009 (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 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: 10 August 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 2 May 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 22 years / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-5 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 2 months, and 19 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA-22 February 2006-1 May 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Southwest Asia / Iraq (15 March 2007-1 June 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, JSAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-w/CS, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time: The applicant’s record of service indicates 94 days of time lost for going AWOL; 34 days 19 March 2009-22 April 2009 and 60 days 2 May 2009-1 July 2009 j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None in available record 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293; letters of support; request for reenlistment or extension in the regular Army document; orders for award of the AGCM; memorandum in reference to his discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial; enlisted record brief; review of PTSD disability benefits questionnaire from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and medical documents dated 16 August 2013, showing the applicant was assessed for PTSD on 13 July 2012 and that he was receiving counseling and treatment for his PTSD related issues. 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. 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 honorable. 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 several acts of significant achievement and valor; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge. The applicant seeks relief, contending that his discharge should be upgraded based on he suffers from PTSD, depression and was under a lot of stress from his family at the time which was causing him not to make rational decisions. The independent documents submitted by the applicant showing he suffers with PTSD and depression were noted; however, the record does not support the contention that the applicant suffered from PTSD and depression and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that his discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends the Army did not offer an opportunity for him to be properly treated for his conditions; a Chaplin indicated in a letter he could be a risk if not treated and those warning signs were overlooked by his commander and he was released back to his unit. He believes had he been properly counseled and treated he would have been able to continue his exemplary service to the Army. 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 and the applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct. The memorandum the applicant makes reference to dated 23 April 2009, from the chaplain indicating the applicant should be separated was noted. However, evidence in the record shows prior to the memorandum, the applicant went AWOL for 34 days; then after receiving the memorandum he went AWOL for another 60 days. The applicant 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 rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 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. It should also be noted the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 3. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial. Soldiers processed in lieu of trial by court-martial will be assigned an SPD Code of KFS and an RE Code of 4. 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. 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): 1. RCS Client Information Record – 12 pages 2. Character letter from former platoon leader – 1 page b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness: Yes 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's file includes a behavioral health diagnosis which may have been mitigating for the offense leading to the separation. The applicant had a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the VA. The PTSD may have existed in a subclinical state while the applicant was still on active duty. During that time he was diagnosed with Anxiety with Depression. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidance behavior, there is a possible nexus between the applicant's PTSD and his AWOL. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and hearing his testimony, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., in service diagnosis of mitigating behavioral health conditions, anxiety and depression), and his post service mitigating diagnosis of PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, in a personal appearance review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 May 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board further determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-5/SGT. Furthermore, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: Re-Code to 4 e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: SGT/E-5 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 AR20150016103 6