1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 June 2018 b. Date Received: 11 June 2018 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 effect, that the discharge for this period of service was already upgraded for administrative purposes. This decision was made in lieu of hearing from 2016 and would like to have the entire DD Form 214, all of the time actively serving to be upgraded officially so the applicant may be fully eligible for educational benefits as the applicant's wish is to advance a career to better oneself and the family. The misconduct was not persistent and the applicant served the country honorably with faithful service all of the time prior. The events that led up to the discharge were cause by significant personal/marital problems that affected the applicant's ability to serve. 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 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Marital Problems. The applicant is 30% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and mTBI. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnoses of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. 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: 17 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 31 July 2006, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 28 March 2006, 3 April 2006, 4 April 2006, 21 April 2006, 25 April 2006, 27 April 2006, 1 May 2006, and 24 May 2006; Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 26 April 2006; Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 28 April 2006; Being absent from his unit from 8 May 2006 until he was apprehended on 11 May 2006; Being absent from his unit from 25 May 2006 until he was apprehended on 17 July 2006; and Breaking restriction on 20 April 2006 and 23 May 2006 (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 July 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 August 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 September 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / GED / 122 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 8 years, 6 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 December 1997 to 25 April 1998 / NA ADT, 26 April 1998 to 6 August 1998 / HD ARNG, 7 August 1998 to 1 November 2001 / GD USARCG, 2 November 2001 to 1 October 2003 / NA RA, 2 October 2003 to 8 September 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (2 February 2005 to 7 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, ICM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 7 July 2007, showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for desertion/apprehended by military authorities. Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Several negative counseling statement for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for a total of 57 days: 3 days (8 May 2006 to 11 May 2006) / apprehended; and 54 days (25 May 2006 to 17 July 2006) / apprehended. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. It should be noted; the applicant contends that he already submitted documents supporting his reasoning why the situation that cause his discharge was not normal and those same documents are what supports this application. However there were no documents found supporting the applicant's claim other than his DD Form 293, dated 5 June 2018. 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 that 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge for this period of service was already upgraded for administrative purposes. This decision was made in lieu of his hearing from 2016 and he would like to have his entire DD Form 214, all of his time actively serving to be upgraded officially so he may be fully eligible for educational benefits as he wish to advance his career to better himself and his family. He contends his misconduct was not persistent and he served his country honorably with faithful service all of his time prior. The events that led up to his discharge were cause by significant personal/marital problems that affected his ability to serve. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. It should be noted; eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnoses of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. 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 AR20180009288 1