1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 June 2016 b. Date Received: 6 June 2016 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) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, since his discharge, he has been awarded a 40 percent service connected disability rating for his back and he has undergone many different treatments. He went AWOL for nearly three years and he does not condone his own actions nor does he make excuses for what he did. He was suffering from major back problems after his deployment to Iraq, upon his return home, he was seen multiple times by various military and civilian doctors, with no diagnosis. While he was AWOL, he was seen by a back specialist, who did determine that he had three herniated discs, and a pinched sciatic nerve. After his discharge, he applied for disability benefits based on service connection for his back, which was approved. He states this should show that he did in fact have back issues, while in service. The only negative action that he had in the military was a company grade Article 15, which he received the day that he went AWOL. He received the Article 15 for not wearing his gear in the field. He states there were many Soldiers who were not wearing their gear in the field. Additionally, his first sergeant had spoken with the applicant about the dislike that he had for him due to the calls that he received from the applicant's wife. The applicant states that he was going through a separation from his wife at the time. The applicant states the counseling statements that he received to justify the Article 15, were backdated and when the applicant asked his platoon sergeant what would happen if he checked "disagree" on the counseling forms, he was advised that he would shred it and print a new one and that his first sergeant could make the applicant's life hell, until he signed and agreed with the counseling. The applicant request that the Board think back to when they were a lower enlisted Soldier or when they were first commissioned and to recall how things at the company level work. The applicant states, he was assigned a first sergeant that was frocked to first sergeant and who believed he needed to prove that he could do the job. On more than one occasion, his command informed his entire company that they could not stop anyone from going to sick call, but they could make sure that if someone went, they would receive a full rectal exam. The applicant states at the company level that meant that one better not go to sick call. The applicant state that he is proud of the service that he had given to the country and he is still living with the sacrifices that he made. He suffers from his back issues and has been diagnosed with both PTSD and depression. Since his discharge, he has had a few different jobs, but he has maintained his recent job as a customer service specialist at an insurance company for the past three years. He receives disability benefits and has been approved for his GI Bill, based on his honorable service. The applicant states that an upgrade of his discharge would not benefit him financially, but it would simply allow him to keep his family name intact and leave his children with a father they can be proud of. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses. Although SM has a service-connnected diagnosis of PTSD from the VA (70% rating) and PTSD can be related to avoidance behaviors such as AWOL, this condition does not explain or directly mitigate his 3 year period of unauthorized absence as there is a lack of evidence regarding his symptoms and level of functioning while AWOL. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence to support his contention that going AWOL was attributed to a lack of treatment for back problems sustained while in service. SM contends he was suffering from major back problems upon returning from his deployment to Iraq; however, there is no evidence that SM addressed issue of back pain with medical providers prior to going AWOL. Medical records dated 12 March 2008 and 18 June 2008 indicated SM sought medical care for leg pain and was diagnosed with Shin Splints. On 17 March 2008, he was seen by Physical Therapy for bilateral lower leg pain. X-rays were within normal limits. On 10 November 2008, SM was seen for the first time in Behavioral Health and Family Advocacy and diagnosed with a Marital Problem. SM reported giving separation papers to his wife who became upset and called the MPs. SM was ordered to stay in the barracks for 72hrs. The last medical note prior to SM going AWOL was on 18 December 2008. He was seen by FAP and the note indicated SMs case was not substantiated. Upon returning from AWOL, SM was seen by medical provider on 25 April 2008. At this time he reported back pain and was diagnosed with a herniated intervertebral disc. There was no indication regarding the onset of back pain or that it was service related In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 August 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH and 70% VA service- connected PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. (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: 3 July 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 17 April 2012, the applicant was charged with violating Article 85, UCMJ, for being AWOL in desertion from 14 February 2009 until 8 April 2012. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 4 June 2012 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 26 June 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 November 2006 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 4 years, 2 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 February 2005 - 1 November 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (4 October 2006 - 3 October 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 14 February 2009; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 14 March 2009; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 16 April 2012. Claycomo Police Department, Offense / Incident Report, dated 8 April 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for an "OTH-Warrant Arrest (Outside Agency) and was extradited to Army control. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1,156 days (AWOL, 14 February 2009 - 15 April 2012) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 May 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with R/O Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 10 May 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Obtained and maintained employment. 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) or honorable. 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 needed medical treatment, but members of his unit were warned not to go on sick call by members of his chain of command; 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Further, 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 fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (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 record shows that on 9 May 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 that he was having family issues. 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 his discharge upgrade would allow him to keep his family name intact and leave his children with a father they can be proud of. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 25 August 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH and 70% VA service-connected PTSD), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. 10. 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160010603 1