1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 August 2018 b. Date Received: 10 August 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was very young during service and upon returning from Iraq, was not able to adjust to life at home. The applicant was drinking and made a dumb decision upon going AWOL and needed help. The family was able to help the applicant out of depression and PTSD. The applicant returned to base to face the responsibilities. The applicant has done well working with the kids that have mental and behavioral issues. The applicant has no record and has not been in any trouble. The biggest mistake in life was not getting help on base, which was frowned upon as an infantry Soldier. The applicant still wishes to have a second chance. The Army attorney never explained that by requesting a discharge in lieu of court-martial, would make it worse. The one thing that has haunted the applicant for 10 years, is the discharge, which the applicant hopes will one day reflect the Army Commendation Medal with valor earned in the year and a half of service. The applicant is now 30 years old with four children and needs a chance. The applicant has shown growth, improvement and dedication, which the applicant did not have at such a young age. If given the opportunity, the applicant would become even better man and father. The applicant has two boys and two girls that look up to the applicant as a man and the applicant only wants to make them proud and send them to college. 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: however symptoms and impairment did not meet criteria for PTSD. The applicant's record is void of any VA records. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. In summary, the applicant does 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 24 July 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, valor, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 11 February 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 5 December 2008, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation of Article 80, UCMJ, the applicant did, at or near Fort Drum, New York, on or about 11 November 2008, attempt to absent himself from his unit, to wit: B Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, located at Fort Drum, New York, by driving to the Syracuse bus station without proper authority until he was apprehended on or about 11 November 2008. Charge II: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, The applicant did, at or near Fort Drum, New York, on or about 23 January 2008, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: B Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, located at Fort Drum, New York, and did remain so absent until on or about 28 October 2008. Charge Ill: Violation of the Article 90, UCMJ, the applicant, having received a lawful command from Second Lieutenant (0-2) D, his superior commissioned officer, then known by the said the applicant to be his superior commissioned officer, to "not leave Fort Drum" and "to only leave the unit area with a noncommissioned officer escort," or words to that effect, did, at or near Fort Drum, New York, on or about 11 November 2008, willfully disobey the same. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 12 January 2009 (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: 4 February 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 October 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 August 2006 - 17 October 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 August 2006 - 4 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-V, NDSM, GOWTS, ASR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 January 2008; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 28 October 2008. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 279 days (AWOL, 23 January 2008 - 28 October 2008) / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has done well working with the kids that have mental and behavioral issues and has started a family. 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 or general (under honorable conditions). 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 contends that he was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The applicant contends his attorney never explained the consequences of requesting a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 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 24 July 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's quality of service, to include combat service, valor, a prior period of honorable service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20180012218 6