1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 July 2016 b. Date Received: 8 August 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he reached out to Evans Army Community Hospital ER due to suicidal ideation and severe decompensation. He was turned away at the front desk for urgent psychiatric care and offered a future appointment, he felt desperate and chose to go AWOL to his home of record. He was rated by the VA as 100 percent permanent and total service connection for PTSD, not including a 40 percent rating for Traumatic Brain Injury and other various conditions. He should have received a medical discharge as originally suggested. His "misconduct" was clearly symptoms of his PTSD and TBI diagnoses and it was completely disregarded in an effort to complete the chapter. His unit as a whole seemed to deteriorate following a number of issues after their second deployment that made him feel unsupported and retaliated against. He requests his rank of E-5 be reinstated. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time including the applicant's case file, AHLTA and JLV. Applicant has the following Behavioral Health diagnoses in AHLTA: Anxiety Disorder NOS, PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (recurrent, moderate), Alcohol Abuse, Cocaine Abuse. AHLTA notes indicate applicant suffers from severe PTSD and Anxiety Disorder NOS as well as depression. Applicant reports he went AWOL when he felt he could not obtain help for his BH problems from the military. While AWOL, he sought and received treatment from a civilian PTSD specialist. After returning from AWOL, he was evaluated by BH and diagnosed with PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. His symptoms were extensive and included: flashbacks, insomnia, numbing of emotion, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, excessive irritability, anhedonia, hypervigilance, increased startle reflex and apathy. He was given an S-3 permanent psychiatric profile and was referred for a MEB. VA notes indicate he is 100% service connected for PTSD. VA Problem List contains the following BH diagnoses: PTSD (chronic), Insomnia, Anxiety Disorder (unspecified), Alcohol Dependence, Late effect of Intracranial Injury. Based on the information available at this time, the applicant has a Behavioral Health diagnosis (PTSD) which is mitigating for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. As PTSD is associated with the use of illicit substances to self- medicate, there is a nexus between his PTSD and his wrongful use of cocaine. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his PTSD and his offenses of being AWOL and failing to report. Review of the military medical record indicates that the applicant received a permanent S3 psychiatric profile while on active duty. He underwent a MEB which found his Anxiety Disorder NOS to fall below psychological retention standards IAW AR 40-501, Chap 3-33. As a result of this finding, the service member was to be referred to the PEB for further adjudication of fitness for duty. However, this process was stopped when the applicant underwent his Chapter separation. In light of the fact that the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army have been completely mitigated by his VA diagnosis of PTSD, it is the Agency psychiatrist's recommendation that the applicant record be referred to IDES for further adjudication. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service and VA post-service PTSD/TBI/OBH diagnoses with a 100% VA service-connected disability rating for PTSD/TBI) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC. (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: 13 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 25 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 11 March 2011, the applicant was charged with the following offenses; without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (26 April 2010); being AWOL (5 May 2010 until (22 June 2010); and wrongfully use of cocaine between (17 April 2010 and 19 April 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 April 2010, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 April 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 October 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / GED Certificate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 13E10, Cannon Fire Direction / 6 years, 10 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 May 2004 to 14 March 2007 / HD RA, 15 March 2007 to 20 October 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq x2, 5 September 2008 to 25 August 2009 and 27 November 2005 to 28 November 2006 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2008 to 31 August 2009, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 51 days (5 May 2010 until 25 June 2010); surrendered to military authorities. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Safe letter (Soldiers and Families Embraced), dated 8 June 2010, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of PTSD, Axis IV diagnosis of limited social support due to anxiety, occupational difficulties and financial stressors and Axis V current GAF 50. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 28 July 2010, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, cocaine and alcohol abuse. Chronological Record of Medical Care / MEB Narrative summary, dated 17 February 2011, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety disorder (NOS), major depressive disorder and TBI. Physical profile, dated 10 May 2011, shows that the applicant had a permanent profile for an anxiety disorder (NOS). VA Medical documents, dated 27 August 2013, relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of PTSD, Axis III medical diagnosis to include TBI and Axis V GAF score of 55. Also, other symptoms were depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks, chronic sleep impairment and disturbances of motivation and mood. VA Medical document, dated 29 January 2013, revealed the applicant had an Axis I, diagnosis of PTSD and TBI (by history), Axis III, history of migraines, Axis IV, psychosocial and environmental problems and Axis V, current GF score 65. VA Medical document, dated 4 September 2013, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with mild TBI, headaches including migraine headaches, chronic PTSD, moderate and a cognitive disorder, NOS (mild). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (seven pages); online application (three pages); letter, submitted by applicant and spouse (two pages); two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293 (two pages); support statement (three pages); VA summary of benefits letter, 100 percent combined service evaluation; Enlisted Record Brief; Chapter 14 notification memorandum (two pages); Chapter 10 separation documents (18 pages); VA medical documents (34 pages); chronological record of medical care (88 pages); Physical Disability Evaluation System Commander's Performance and Functional Statement (six pages); Safe letter (Soldiers and Families Embraced, two pages); Service School Academic Evaluation Report; Fort Carson Ambulance, Evans Army Community Hospital; Memorial Hospital , Emergency Department Report (two pages); and an NCOER (two pages). 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 although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 several acts of significant achievement and valor to include combat service x2; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. AR 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 regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, he reached out to Evans Army Community Hospital ER due to suicidal ideation and severe decompensation; he was turned away at the front desk for urgent psychiatric care and offered a future appointment, he felt desperate and chose to go AWOL to his home of record. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant further contends, he was rated by the VA as 100 percent permanent and total service connection for PTSD, not including a 40 percent rating for Traumatic Brain Injury and other various conditions. The applicant submitted a VA summary of benefits letter, which shows he received a 100 percent combined service evaluation. However, this document did not annotate any specific mental conditions pertaining to his overall evaluation. The applicant also contends, he should have received a medical discharge as originally suggested. 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 additionally contends, his "misconduct" were clear symptoms of his PTSD and TBI diagnoses and it was completely disregarded in an effort to complete the chapter. 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 bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his medical conditions were disregarded. Moreover, the applicant contends, his unit as a whole seemed to deteriorate following a number of issues after their second deployment that made him feel unsupported and retaliated against. Although the applicant alleges that he was unsupported and retaliated against during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade and a change to the narrative reason for discharge. Lastly, the applicant requests his rank of E-5 be reinstated. The applicant was promoted to E-5 with a date of rank of 1 September 2008. It appears that the applicant was reduced to E-4 by UCMJ action. Therefore, his rank cannot be reinstated due to the aforementioned. 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 20 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service and VA post- service PTSD/TBI/OBH diagnoses with a 100% VA service-connected disability rating for PTSD/TBI) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. The board determined the RE code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3 e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFF / No Change to RE code f. Restore Grade to: E-4/SPC 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 AR20160013372 7