1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 April 2016 b. Date Received: 31 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, was going through a tough time in life. The applicant was suffering from PTSD that resulted from a combat tour in Iraq. The applicant was accused of being AWOL and incarcerated for 20 days after returning from the AWOL. The applicant was having relationship issues with the ex-spouse, who was mentally unstable. Encountering numerous problems in attempting to save the relationship and sanity led to the AWOL. The ex-spouse claimed all types of abuse and lack of support from the applicant, which were not true, to the new commander. The commander was new and did not know the applicant. As such, the applicant had no support from the chain of command. The final solution was obtaining a divorce. 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 Cocaine Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, and Adjustment Disorder. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Benzodiazepine Use Disorder. The applicant provided documentation showing diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Cocaine Use Disorder, Sedative Use Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, although the applicant submitted documentation, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the BH diagnoses are mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on4 September 2019, 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: Misconduct (AWOL) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(1) / JKD / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 December 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial for going AWOL on 18 August 2009, and remained absent until he was apprehended on 3 March 2010. The applicant wrongfully used cocaine between 10 May 2010, and 12 May 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived on 23 November 2010; however, consulted with a counsel on 12 July 2010, during executing his offer to plead guilty at a summary court-martial (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived according to "Offer to Plead Guilty" on 12 July 2010, in a court-martial. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 December 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 July 2007 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10 Cannon Crewmember / 2 years, 9 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 January 2008 to 2 April 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Return of Absentee, dated 4 March 2010, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 3 March 2010, and incarcerated in a county jail. A Criminal Records Check, dated 10 May 2010, indicates the applicant was incarcerated on 3 March 2010, for assault, and was released on 22 March 2010. Memorandum with an Offer to Plead Guilty and Appendix I (Quantum), dated 12 July 2010, subject: Offer to Plead Guilty at Summary Court-Martial and Waiver of Administrative Separation Board [the applicant], rendered by the applicant in consultation with his defense counsel, noted in pertinent part, that while it was requested the preferred charges of 30 June 2010, be referred to a special court-martial, empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge, the applicant offered to plead guilty to the charges provided the convening authority referred the charges to a summary court-martial; that as part of the plea at a summary court-martial, he agreed to waive his right to a separation board and understood that an UOTHC would be approved. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial with Report of Result of Trial and its associated documents, indicate that on 28 July 2010, the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL on 18 August 2009, and remained absent until he was apprehended on 3 March 2010, and of wrongfully using cocaine between 10 May 2010, and 12 May 2010. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1 and 30 days of confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 216 days (AWOL on 18 August 2009, until 3 March 2010, for 198 days and civilian confinement until 22 March 2010, for 18 days) / The applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 3 March 2010, and incarcerated and released on 22 March 2010. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 September 2010, indicates an "Axis I" diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, mild." Applicant's documentary evidence: Behavioral Health Diagnostic Form, dated 19 February 2016, lists disorders and conditions as "Major depressive, disorder, Recurrent"; "Posttraumatic stress disorder"; "Cocaine use disorder, Severe"; "Sedative, hypnotic, or anxiolytic use"; and "Alcohol use disorder, Moderate." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 14 April 2016; AAM certificate with Recommendation for Award; Behavioral Health Diagnostic Form, dated 19 February 2016; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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. The applicant's available record of service, and 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, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends he was suffering from PTSD that resulted from combat tour in Iraq. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims stress with family issues at home and with no chain of command support resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his stress at home and work 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 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 on4 September 2019, 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20170015225 6