1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 November 2017 b. Date Received: 16 November 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was not given fair opportunity of help until afterwards. The applicant's wife left, was injured and scheduled surgery, but the commander forced the applicant to stay in the barracks. The commander also made the applicant surrender finances to the wife and child support to a child that was not the applicant's. The applicant states, at the time, was in a state of depression and felt hopeless. The applicant requested help, but no one was willing to help. After surgery, the stepfather persuaded the applicant to stay home with the family where the stepfather would take care of the applicant. The applicant was disabled from being injured while in the field. The peer pressure and hazing from fellow Soldiers and senior NCO's stacked up in the applicant's mind. They would talk about the wife cheating and make fun of the situation. The applicant was always tasked with the worst duty positions because of the arm condition. The applicant states it was unfair, unjust, and not right. There was nothing he could do about it and believed as if it were coming from everyone. During convalescence leave, the applicant believed this was a time for the applicant to take a break from everything, relax, get better, and come back to a fresh start. The applicant began working for the stepfather, who convinced the applicant that if the applicant did not return to the Army, everything would be alright. The applicant was depressed and believed this was a way to not deal with the circumstances, but did not know what the applicant was doing. The applicant did not realize the consequences of these actions and knows it was wrong. If the applicant could go back and change life, the applicant would not have gone AWOL. The applicant does not justify these actions, but believes anyone in the same situation would have done the same. The applicant requested help from the chain of command and in response was sent to mental health, which did not help. It made matters worse and the applicant felt corned and afraid that the applicant did not have control over life. This was the reason the applicant went AWOL, but believes the applicant was a good Soldier, who deserved a better discharge. The applicant was never offered the opportunity to make things right and misses life in the Army. The applicant states an upgrade of discharge would allow a second chance to be a Soldier. The applicant requests the Board forgive the misconduct and offer the opportunity to serve again. 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 Major Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is 20% service-connected for non-BH diagnoses from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder NOS. In summary, the applicant did not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 August 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 October 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: From 6 June 2009 to 9 September 2009, he was wrongfully absent without leave (AWOL). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 October 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 July 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31E10, Corrections Specialist; 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System / Fire Direction Specialist / 4 years, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 October 2005 - 10 July 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, MOVSM 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 6 June 2009; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 7 July 2009; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 9 September 2009. Mental Status Report, dated 25 September 2009, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Commander's Report, dated 15 October 2009, reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, dated 13 October 2009, for being AWOL. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699 pay for two months; extra duty and restriction for 30 days; and, an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 9 June 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 20 percent disability for labral tear s/p arthroscopic repair with a/c joint dislocation (claimed as shoulder condition right (related to PTSD-Non-Combat) (also claimed as musculoskeletal-shoulder (secondary to shoulder condition, right). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 638; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; two letters of support; Enlisted Record Brief; AGCM Certificate; VA Rating Decision. 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. 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 12c, misconduct (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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. 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 applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends that he was harrased by members of his chain of command; 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends he was suffering from depression. The service record contains no evidence of depression diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 reflects that on 25 September 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible 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 he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, 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 was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 21 August 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 AR20180000038 1