1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 November 2015 b. Date Received: 23 December 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 seeks relief contending, in effect, he mentally suffered in 2004-2005 and was unable to deal with the stress and anxiety. He attempted to end his life on post. The applicant states that he was admitted to Palo Verde Behavioral Health and discharged on 31 May 2005, with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Psychosis, unspecified. His physician's recommendation was for him to be separated from the Army. Once he returned to Fort Huachuca, he was supposed to be seen by behavioral health to determine if he was fit for duty or to be separated. This was a crucial step that was not taken by his unit, which caused more mental issues for the applicant. The applicant's mental state was not good and he felt as though his unit failed him so instead of going on PCS leave on 18 July 2005, the applicant went AWOL. The applicant contends that he was diagnosed by Behavioral Health at Fort Huachuca with Borderline Personality Disorder in April 2014. Although the applicant believes he should have been separated for medical reasons due to being diagnosed with three different mental disorders, he contends that the unit's failure to adhere to regulatory guidance (MEDCOM Regulation 40-38 and DODI 1332.38) is reason enough to upgrade his discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, and the evidence in the available records was insufficient to assess his mental state in 2005, based on records from that time. Neither AHLTA nor the JLV had any records from 2005 in them. The chief obstacles to deciding whether to mitigate the applicant's misconduct are three. First, the onset of the disorders is unclear. Ordinarily, a Borderline Personality Disorder would be well established, but it would NOT mitigate the misconduct of the applicant. His PTSD may have existed at the time of his AWOL; however, the available evidence for symptoms being present is the applicant. But the applicant has a criminal record that occurred during his period of desertion that includes crimes that involve conniving, most especially fraud. This fact undermines the trustworthiness of the applicant's contentions, the second obstacle, especially when unsupported by corroborating evidence. Further, the applicant's desertion lasted from 2005 to 2014. Nine years is an extremely long period. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 March 2017, 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 29 April 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 85. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 85, Desertion, 24 May 2005 to 10 January 2014 (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 May 2014 (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 22 May 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 June 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42F10, HR Information Systems Management Specialist / 1 year, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: MP Report, dated January 2014, reflects the Provost Marshall office was notified that the applicant, identified as a US Army deserter, was apprehended by civilian authorities and being held at Philadelphia Prison at 2100 hours on 10 January 2014. Three Personnel Action Forms, dated between 31 October 2012 and 28 January 2014, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 24 May 2005 from "AWOL" to "Dropped from Rolls (DFR)," effective 23 June 2005 from "DFR" to "PDY," effective 17 January 2014. Report of Medical History, dated 17 January 2014, reflects the applicant reported having behavioral health issues (i.e. anxiety attack, major depressive psychosis, and attempted suicide). The report was not validated by a medical examiner. Memorandum, dated 14 February 2014, Subject: Appointment as Investigating Officer (IO), signed by COL D.J.M., Commanding Officer, appointing CW2 G.T.B. as the IO to conduct an informal investigation pursuant to AR 15-6 and to conduct a Formal Line of Duty Investigating Officer pursuant to AR 600-8-4. The investigation will ascertain the facts and make findings and recommendations regarding the details concerning the medical condition of the applicant, to specifically address what was the duty status when the applicant contracted HIV and whether that disease occurred in the line of duty. Memorandum, dated 5 March 2014, Subject: Line of Duty Determination, authored by CW2 G.T.B., the IO, determined that the three exhibits clearly established that the applicant was AWOL at the time of infection. Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 7 March 2014, reflects the applicant contracted HIV. He was examined by the Florida State Health Department on 19 April 2010. Block 11 states, "PT was not on active duty in 2010 when diagnosed with disease. Last negative test was 2004 completed by the US Army." Block 15 states, "Soldier was living in Florida at the time he was tested by the health department in 2010." Report of Medical Assessment, dated 19 March 2014, reflects the applicant indicated "yes" in block 15 that he has a condition, HIV, which would limit his ability to work in his primary military specialty. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 29 April 2014, described at the preceding paragraph 3c(2). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3,065 days (Desertion, 12 July 2005 to 16 January 2014) / apprehended by civilian authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 February 2014, reflects the applicant was deemed to be fit for full duty, could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and was psychologically cleared for a Chapter 14-12 separation or any other administrative action deemed necessary by the Commander. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Phase of Life Problem and (Axis III) HIV Positive. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; MEDCOM Regulation 40-38; and DoDI 6490.04. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a 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. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his 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 and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. The applicant contends that he suffered mentally in 2004-2005 and was unable to deal with the stress and anxiety which affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. While the applicant may believe his stress was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through 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 states that, after he attempted to end his life, he was admitted to Palo Verde Behavioral Health and discharged on 31 May 2005, with a diagnosis of PTSD and Major Depressive Psychosis, unspecified. Further stating that his physician's recommendation was for him to be separated from the Army and that he was diagnosed by Behavioral Health at Fort Huachuca with Borderline Personality Disorder in April 2014. The service record contains no evidence of such diagnoses; however, based on the mental status evaluation conducted on 10 February 2014, the applicant had diagnoses of (Axis I) Phase of Life Problem and (Axis III) HIV Positive. The applicant contends he should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant further contends that he was supposed to be seen by behavioral health to determine if he was fit for duty or to be separated and that his unit failed to adhere to MEDCOM Regulation 40-38 and DODI 1332.38. The record shows that on 10 February 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which deemed him to be fit for full duty and was also psychologically cleared for a Chapter 14-12 separation. Furthermore, 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: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 March 2017, 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 (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 AR20150019222 4