1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 August 2017 b. Date Received: 29 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he had a long and faithful service with a combat tour. He demonstrated consistent dedication to US Army mission. He was a stable and effective Soldier prior to his deployment to Iraq in 2005. He completed PLDC and received multiple awards for his performance as a 92G. He was a vital member of several distinguished and individually recognized DFACS, where he served in one as first cook. He earned the rank of Sergeant. He was detailed as a gunner during the 05/06 deployment and was exposed to multiple traumatic events associated with direct combat operations, IEDs, VBIEDs, indirect fire, and friendly and enemy fatalities. His family was also undergoing an enormous amount of stress associated with the deployment including financial hardship and extreme stress for his three young children. Upon his return from deployment, he began feeling the symptoms of PTSD and turned to drugs and alcohol to numb the overwhelming physiological and psychological stress and depression. The consequences of these decisions were swift and immediate, resulting in his discharge. Although he attended ADAPT, he did not properly seek appropriate treatment for PTSD because during that period, seeking such treatment was not encouraged or supported effectively. He actively sought treatment at a VA Medical Center for PTSD, in hopes of effectively improving his overall quality of life. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) the applicant may have had a partially mitigating behavioral health condition at the time that led to the applicant's discharge. The applicant does not have a PTSD diagnosis, but does display some PTSD symptoms. He also has diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Marital Conflict. His misconduct is not fully mitigated as he does not have a diagnosis of PTSD. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 September 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the AWOL (i.e. some PTSD symptoms). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 1 August 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 2 May 2007, the following charge was preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge: Charge: three specifications of violating of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL on 3 February 2007, and remained absent until 14 February 2007; being AWOL on 1 March 2007, and remained absent until 12 March 2007; and being AWOL on 19 April 2007, and remained absent until 30 April 2007. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 3 May 2007 (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: 27 July 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 November 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist / 7 years, 10 months, 6 days (includes excess leave for 90 days from 4 May 2007 to 1 August 2007, creditable for all purposes except pay and allowances) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (23 September 1999 to 21 February 2002) / HD RA (22 February 2002 to 13 November 2005) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA (NIF) / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; AGCM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Two NCOERs: March 2005 thru February 2006, Among the Best March 2006 thru April 2006 (RFC), Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 April 2006, for wrongfully using marijuana between 22 January 2006 and 22 February 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $974 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 36 days (AWOL: 3 February 2007 to 14 February 2007, for 12 days; 1 March 2007 to 12 March 2007, for 12 days; and 19 April 2007 to 30 April 2007, for 12 days) / For each AWOL occurrence, the applicant returned to his unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 18 August 2017. 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 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. 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues 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. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. 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. The record documents no other acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends he was detailed as a gunner during his 2005/2006 deployment and was exposed to multiple traumatic events associated with direct combat operations, and upon returning, he did not properly seek appropriate treatment for PTSD, but he has, since his discharge, actively sought treatment at a VA Medical Center for his PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., documentary evidence of his PTSD diagnosis by a competent medical authority, and records of his deployment), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends that his family was also undergoing an enormous amount of stress associated with the deployment including financial hardship and extreme stress for his three young children. 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. 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 complete period of service and accomplishments 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 on 26 September 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the AWOL (i.e. some PTSD symptoms). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 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 AR20170017852 1