1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 April 2018 b. Date Received: 4 June 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, when the applicant first enlisted in the Army, the applicant was sent to Fort Sill where the applicant graduated in the top 10 percent of the class as an Honor Graduate. The applicant was sent to Fort Bliss for Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and graduated in the top 20 percent of the class. Once stationed at Fort Drum, the applicant was injured and the clinic there refused to treat the injury. At the same time, the wife left with the child, which caused the applicant to have a feeling helplessness and being unheard, resulting in going AWOL in order to see the child. The applicant was sent to a court-martial and was given 45 days restriction and extra duty, which the applicant completed. The applicant states, it was confirmed that the wrist had been broken the whole time requiring two surgeries. The unit received ETS discharge orders, but the unit ignored and separated the applicant for being AWOL, under chapter 14. The applicant states, because of the way the applicant was discharged, the applicant is not eligible for VA education benefits. The applicant would like to have the discharge amended so that the applicant is able to receive all the benefits that the applicant is entitled to which the applicant earned while serving the country. 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 Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Mood Disorder, and Personality Disorder. The applicant is 100% service-connected for Major Depressive Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder, Opiate Use Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Borderline Personality Traits. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 December 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: 30 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 26 May 2006 and on or about 13 August 2010, he violated restrictions to the limits of Fort Drum by a person authorized to do so and wrongfully absented himself from his Unit: E company, 10th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Fort Drum. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 October 2011, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 July 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 1 month, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 7 April 2010; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 19 April 2010. From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 26 May 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 26 June 2010; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 13 August 2010; and, From "Hospitalized" to "PDY," effective 21 October 2010. Charge Sheet, dated 7 March 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I, violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority absent himself from his unit 26 May 2010 to 13 August 2010. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, for having been restricted to the limits of Fort Drum, New York, by a person authorized to do so, did, at or near Fort Drum, New York, on or about 26 May 2010, break said restriction. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 10 May 2011, reflects the applicant: Offered To plead as follows: To All Charges and Their Specifications: Guilty. To be tried by Summary Court-Martial. To waive his right to a Board in any administrative separation proceedings commenced within 90 days after the date of his Summary Court-Martial, regardless of the type of discharge recommended. In exchange for his actions as stated above, the Convening Authority agrees to the following: *Refer this case to a Summary Court-Martial for disposition. Offer to Plead Guilty, decision, dated 23 May 2011, reflects the Convening Authority accepted the applicant's Offer to Plead Guilty. FG Article 15, dated 14 May 2010, for being AWOL (between 7 and 19 April 2010). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $724 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 26 May 2010, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 14 May 2010, was vacated because the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (24 May 2010). Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 6 June 2011, reflects the applicant plead guilty and was found guilty of two charges: Charge I, violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority absent himself from his unit 26 May 2010 to 13 August 2010. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, for having been restricted to the limits of Fort Drum, New York, by a person authorized to do so, did, at or near Fort Drum, New York, on or about 26 May 2010, break said restriction. The applicant pled guilty to all specifications and was found guilty on all specifications. The sentenced adjudged: Hard time labor without confinement for 45 days and Restriction to the limits of Fort Drum for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 77 days (AWOL, 26 May 2010 - 11 August 2010) / j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 August 2011, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 200; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; medical records; case separation documents; military service records. 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. 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. 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 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 he should have normally ETS'd at the end of his enlistment, but his unit ignored his discharge orders. However, 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. The applicant contends he had a medical condition which had not been appropriately treated. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 11 December 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 AR20180009470 1