1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 February 2017 b. Date Received: 27 February 2017 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 general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant went AWOL from 23 May 2011 until 5 October 2011, and then returned. The applicant is an Iraq combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The applicant was awarded a CAB, ICM, AAM and an ARCOM as well as other decorations. The applicant needs an upgrade in order to get the help one needs at the VAMC and get financial help through the VA. The applicant went AWOL after hurting a knee and was told to never jump again; the applicant found out the wife was having an affair and being in combat was more than the applicant could handle. The applicant was young at the time of the misconduct. The applicant made mistakes at 21 years old and does not want to pay for them the rest of life. The current discharge prevents the applicant from obtaining a good job. The applicant is now 28 years old and trying to get life together the best one can. A prior records review was conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 April 2014. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) notes indicate applicant was diagnosed with multiple Behavioral Health (BH) conditions while on active duty. The applicant received Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and BH services after returning from being AWOL. The first contact with BH was in October 2011, at which time he underwent his separation Mental Status Evaluation (MSE). The MSE endorsed PTSD symptoms, but the applicant did not meet criteria for a PTSD diagnosis in that the applicant denied intrusive thoughts, re-experiencing events, and nightmares. The applicant reported being diagnosed with PTSD via civilian medical care while AWOL. Review of the VA medical record indicates the applicant is not currently eligible for VA services. Based on the available documentation, the applicant does have a mitigating BH disorder which mitigates the misconduct which led to separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he tested positive for marijuana (21 October 2011); and being absent without leave. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 January 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 July 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N 1 P, Horizontal Construction / 3 years, 2 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 4 June 2009 to 1 June 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A negative counseling statement, dated 11 October 2011, for being AWOL. A positive urinalysis test coded CO (Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for Duty), dated 21 October 2011, for THC. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 October 2011, relates that the applicant been screened for PTSD and mTBI; the PTSD screen was negative and mTBI was positive. There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate intelligently as a respondent in any administrative proceedings. He was referred for mTBI evaluation as required by positive screening, but symptoms and functioning reported by the applicant and Command did not rise to the level initiation of a fitness for duty referral for a medical board. The applicant was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the separation authority (GCMCA). FG Article 15, dated 18 November 2011, for being AWOL x2 (23 May 2011 until 5 October 2011 and 18 October 2011 until 19 October 2011); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x2 for 146 days, 23 May 2011 until 5 October 2011, for 145 days, surrendered to military authorities and 18 October 2011 until 19 October 2011, for 1 day, returned to unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Letter, North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; DD Form 214, with narrative reason for separation as misconduct (drug abuse); DD Form 214, with narrative reason for separation as misconduct (serious offense); Combat Action Badge, Orders 009-022; Operation Smart Award; ARCOM Citation and AAM Citation. 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he went AWOL from 23 May 2011 until 5 October 2011 and turned himself in. A DA Form 4187 shows that on 5 October 2011, the applicant turned himself in to the Fort Bragg Provost Marshall. The applicant further contends, he is an Iraq combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD and TBI. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD or an mTBI diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant also contends, he was awarded a CAB, ICM, AAM and an ARCOM as well as other decorations. 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 additionally contends, he needs an upgrade to get the help he needs at the VAMC and get financial help through the VA. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he went AWOL when he hurt his knee and was told he would never jump again; he found out his wife was having an affair and being in combat was more that he could handle. 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. Moreover the applicant contends, he was young at the time of his misconduct; and he made mistakes when he was 21 years old and do not want to pay for them the rest of his life. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, his discharge prevents him from obtaining a good job; and he is 28 years old and trying to get his life together the best he can. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence of record contains several personnel actions that indicate the applicant went AWOL 23 May 2011 to 5 October 2011 and again 18 October 2011 to 20 October 2011. The applicant was tested on 21 October 2011, the day after his return from AWOL. It appears the unit commander ordered the urinalysis test based on a command / unit policy. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for "Inspection Other" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. 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): 5 Pages: a. Airborne Course Certificate (1 page) b. ASAP Complete Certificate (1 page) c. Medical Documents (3 pages) b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD). Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170003740 6