1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 May 2017 b. Date Received: 30 May 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of a bad conduct discharge; however, his DD Form 214, reflects that the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. In the applicant's case, the request is an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, is not eligible for VA benefits and believes he should receive benefits because of a deployment to Iraq, as an airborne infantryman for 11 months. The applicant states, this deployment has caused multiple mental issues resulting from the loss of eight close friends due to roadside bombs. The applicant needs help and knows it was not the right decision to come back after a leg injury in 2007, which the applicant has regretted every single day since then. The applicant states, he was run over by a vehicle immediately after his deployment in 2007, which had caused an open fracture and has had a total of three surgeries to treat the injury. The applicant has a rod from the knee to ankle and a four inch plate with four screws in the injured leg. The applicant knows it does not make it okay, but the applicant only chose not to return after the accident and was not fit for duty. 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), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant had limited Behavioral Health (BH) records due to the period of service. Post- service, the applicant has not been seen by the Veterans Affairs (VA) and does not have a service-connected percentage rating. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a medical or BH condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 November 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), b. block 26, separation code changed to JKD, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (AWOL). (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Desertion) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c (1) / JKF / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 October 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was absent without leave. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 14 October 2009, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 14 October 2009, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 November 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 June 2005 / 4 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (25 January 2006 - 7 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 19 December 2007; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 18 January 2008; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 16 June 2009. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 8 July 2009, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 21 September 2009, reflects the applicant offered to plead to the Charge and its Specification: Guilty, except the words "16 June 2009," substituting therefore the words "1 June 2009." To the excepted words: Not guilty; to the substituted words guilty. The applicant waived his right to request an administrative separation board, if so entitled, in an administrative separation action initiated to separate him pursuant to AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12 within 30 days of final action being taken on the Summary Court-Martial by the Convening Authority. The Convening Authority accepted the applicant guilty plea on 23 September 2008. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 7 October 2009, reflects the applicant was charged with one specification of violation of Article 86, AWOL. On or about 18 September 2007 without authority absent himself from his unit and did remain so absent until on or about 16 June 2009. The applicant was found guilty, except to the words "16 June 2009," substituting therefore the words "1 June 2009." To the excepted words: Not Guilty: to the substituted words: Guilty. The sentence adjudged: confined for 30 days and to forfeit $933 pay. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 635 days (AWOL, 19 September 2007 - 15 June 2009) / Apprehended by Civilian Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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(1) allows for an absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion to be separated for commission of a serious offense. 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 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 record confirms that 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. 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 26, Separation Code as JKF; block 27, reentry code as 4; and, block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, as Misconduct (Desertion). The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c(1). The evidence of the record reflects the applicant was charged with and plead guilty to being AWOL. Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, which reflects Soldiers separated for AWOL, will be assigned a narrative reason of Misconduct (AWOL), with SPD code of JKD. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant should have been assigned an RE code of 3, regardless if the narrative reason was Desertion or AWOL. The applicant contends he suffers from mental conditions resulting from his combat deployment. However, the service record contains no evidence of mental disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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 8 July 2009, 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow medical benefits through the use of the VA. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical 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. 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): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 November 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, 27, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), b. block 26, separation code changed to JKD, c. block 27, reentry code changed to 3, d. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (AWOL). 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (AWOL) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1) e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKD / RE-3 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 AR20170009109 5