1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 August 2016 b. Date Received: 22 August 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, has recently been going through a rough divorce, which has caused the necessity to see a therapist. During the applicant's visits to the therapist, the applicant was forced to face issues that the applicant had blocked out from the past. While deployed to Iraq, in 2005, the applicant served as a gunner for the command sergeant major. During the rest and recuperation leave from combat, the applicant was involved in a car accident, which left the grandmother so badly injured that there had to be facial reconstructive surgery. The applicant's lung collapsed as a result of the accident, which caused the applicant to become non-deployable. The applicant states, after redeployment from Iraq, knew there was something different, but was not sure what. The applicant was on edge, would watch the roads for IEDs, buildings for snipers running and running red lights. The applicant contacted the sister, who was under 18 and living in a crack house with a serious drug problem. The applicant went to the chain of command for help regarding the sister, but was told it was not their problem. The applicant states that not having much family and had practically raised the sister. The applicant could not leave the sister and being denied leave to go help, the applicant went AWOL. The applicant states had every intention of returning to the unit, but the fiancé at the time, had been diagnosed with cancer. The applicant's fiancé did not have much time left, so the applicant decided to stay. The applicant worked and took care of them and the sister became clean of drugs. The applicant's fiancé's father, blamed the applicant before the fiancé's death, for keeping him from God. The father called the applicant's unit and was expedited back to Fort Carson, where the applicant awaited a trial and subsequently accepted a discharge in lieu of a court-martial. The applicant has not made the best decisions and does not blame anyone for these actions. The applicant never dealt with the personal issues at the time and buried them in order to care for others. The nightmares and paranoia have returned and now carries a weapon at all times. The applicant does not know how to deal with the issues, which affects daily life. The applicant's therapist has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, anxiety, trauma and depression. The applicant is unable to access the correct help that the VA can offer. The applicant states an upgrade will enable the necessary help. 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 no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The are currently no VA records on the applicant. 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 1 February 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 September 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 10 July 2008, the applicant was charged with violating Article 85, UCMJ, for being AWOL in desertion, from 13 September 2006 to 20 March 2008. (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (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: 14 August 2008 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 July 2004 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 52D10, Power-Generation Equipment Repairer / 2 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 13 September 2006; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 15 May 2008. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 621 days (AWOL, 1 September 2006 - 14 May 2008) / Apprehended by civilian police j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Privacy Act Release Form; Congressional Inquiry; Driver License; Social Security Card; self-authored statement; VA Letter; and, a VA Form 10-10EZ. 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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her 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 she indicated she understood she 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. Her 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 contends that she was having family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused her to be discharged. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends she has been diagnosed with PTSD by her therapist. However, 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that she knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow VA benefits that she desperately needs. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits do 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 applicant contends that she had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. 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 1 February 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 AR20180011546 1