1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 January 2018 b. Date Received: 8 January 2018 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, was experiencing extreme mental trauma after returning from Iraq. The applicant decided to go AWOL to be with the wife, who was pregnant at the time, back home. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD before being discharged. The applicant spent two stays in an inpatient mental health facility while on active duty and the command saw this as weakness. The applicant also spent time in isolation and the constant hatred and hazing by the unit absolutely broke the applicant down. The applicant was diagnosed with a TBI due to the many explosions while deployed as a combat engineer. The applicant was also diagnosed with early onset Parkinson, which the civilian doctors believe was blast related. There was no support from the chain of command and it led to the applicant doing stupid and irresponsible things. The applicant is a much better person, completely sober since 2011, sought help and treatment for all of the issues, is a productive member of society, found employment, pays taxes, and volunteers time to help local veteran groups. 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 the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety/Disturbance of Emotions, Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate and Personality Disorder. VA records indicate that the applicant has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 January 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, severe family matters, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (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: 27 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 15 September 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which shows on 15 September 2011, the applicant was charged without authority and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently, absented himself from his unit x2, and (19 November 2009 until 14 April 2010) and (12 October 2010 until 29 July 2011) and did remain so absent in desertion until he was apprehended; and wrongfully possess some amount of marijuana between (1 November 2009 and about 24 November 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 September 2011, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 October 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 December 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 21B10, Combat Engineer / 3 years, 9 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 October 2006 to 7 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 5 September 2008 to 14 August 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A Military Police Report, dated 24 November 2009, revealed the applicant was under investigation for desertion, on post. Military Police Report, dated 18 November 2009, indicates the applicant was under investigation for assault consummated by a battery, assault in the third degree, domestic-both subjects on post. Military Police Report, dated 24 November 2009, shows the applicant was under investigation for AWOL, departed place of duty, wrongful possession of a controlled substance-marijuana, failure to obey a general order-wrongful possession of paraphernalia, on post. A negative counseling statement dated, 19 April 2010, for being AWOL. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Desertion x 2 for 446 days, 19 November 2009 until 15 April 2010, for 148 days and 13 October 2010 until 9 August 2011 for 298 days; applicant was apprehended on both periods. Also the applicant was confined by civilian authorities for 10 days, 29 July 2011 until 9 August 2011. However, this period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 October 2010, revealed that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of depression, not otherwise specified. Had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 August 2011, revealed that the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, not otherwise specified. He was screened for PTSD and mTBI, both screens were negative. He could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was retainable in accordance with AR40-50 and was able to be administratively separated in accordance with AR 635-200. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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 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 although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 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. 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. His record documents several acts of significant achievement and valor to include combat service; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was experiencing extreme mental trauma returning from Iraq; and he was also diagnosed with early onset of Parkinson, which the civilian doctors believe was blast related. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant further contends, he decided to go AWOL to be with his wife, who was pregnant at the time back home. 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 also contends, he was diagnosed with PTSD before being discharged; and he was diagnosed with a TBI due to the many explosions he was involved in as a combat engineer. The service record contains no evidence of a PTSD nor TBI 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 additionally contends, he spent two stays in an inpatient mental health facility while on active duty and his command saw this as weakness; and he spent time in isolation, the constant hatred and hazing by his unit absolutely broke him down. 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. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he had no support from the chain of command and it led to him doing stupid and irresponsible things. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Lastly, the applicant contends, he is a much better person, completely sober since 2011; he sought help and treatment for all of his issues; he is a productive member of society, found employment, pay taxes, and volunteer his time to help local veterans groups. The applicant is to be commended for his effort; however, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 25 January 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, severe family matters, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20180001387 1