1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 December 2018 b. Date Received: 22 February 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, 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, the discharge was inequitable because the minor infractions and Absent Without Leave (AWOL) were a direct result of an undiagnosed and untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) sustained in combat. The applicant's discharge was unjust because these combat- related disabilities directly caused the conduct and rendered the applicant unable to use sound judgment. Had been the applicant been discharged under the current discharge policies and procedures, it is highly likely that, given the combat-related disabilities received while serving in Afghanistan, the Board would have granted an honorable discharge. The applicant is a Global War on Terrorism combat veteran who served honorably for two and a half years in the Army. The applicant had an exemplary record before sustaining a head injury from two separate incidents and developed PTSD in combat. After these injuries, due to lack of treatment, the applicant was cited for minor disciplinary actions and eventually went AWOL, which lead to an other than honorable discharge. In May 2012, the applicant learned the fiancée was pregnant. The applicant was overjoyed and the couple married less than a month later. Despite these positive events, the applicant was under great financial pressure. In July 2012, the wife experienced a miscarriage. The applicant was devastated and requested leave to be with the grieving wife and was initially denied. Two days after returning home, however, the applicant was ordered to return to Fort Drum the next day to participate in a field training exercise. The applicant's wife had complications due to the miscarriage and was scheduled for surgery on the third day. To follow orders, the applicant left the wife alone in the hospital and reported for training. In July 2012, the applicant's wife called asking for the applicant to come home. She told the applicant she "didn't want to be around anymore." Wanting to support the wife and fearing for her safety, the applicant requested leave, but was told to "get over it." The applicant had reached the breaking point and, without any thought for actions, walked away from post to go back to the wife in Vermont. The applicant was picked up and brought back to the unit where the applicant talked with a military chaplain telling the applicant that the applicant needed medical help. The chaplain told the applicant the only way to get help was to leave. Hearing this advice, the applicant's own health concerns and the wife's safety in mind, the applicant left base and went AWOL and returned to Vermont. During the time away, the applicant was diagnosed by a doctor in Vermont as having PTSD. The applicant began to take medication and was referred for therapy by the doctor. In February 2013, after returning to Fort Drum, the applicant had an appointment where the provider stated the applicant was experiencing "blackouts" absent substance abuse, a depressed mood and feeling anxious. Since discharge, the applicant has received help for PTSD and now has two children. The applicant has been working at an oil company as a service technician for over a year and is working on restoring a truck. The applicant is actively working to get life back on track and that it stays on track. An upgrade will allow the applicant to have access to VA health care and VA disability benefits that the applicant needs to be properly healed. The applicant would also like prospective employers focus on the positive service contributions when the applicant applies for a job, rather than having that service overshadowed by a discharge status for one incident. Counsel further details the applicant's contentions in an allied legal brief. 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 Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. The applicant does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD. 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 13 September 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), and post-service accomplishments. 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: 5 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 13 February 2013, the applicant was charged with violating Article 85, UCMJ, for being AWOL in desertion from 28 July 2012 to 8 February 2013. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 February 2013 (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: 12 March 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 August 2009 / 4 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13F10, Fire Support Specialist / 3 years, 1 month, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (2 April 2011 - 12 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Four Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 28 July 2012; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 30 August 2012; From "DFR" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 8 February 2013; and, From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 12 February 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 198 days AWOL, 28 July 2012 - 7 February 2013 / Apprehended by Civil Authorities CMA, 8 February 2013 - 12 February 2013 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 20 March 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety disorder NOS, with combat stress. The applicant provided a copy of his civilian medical records, dated 11 September 2012, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293, with allied legal brief and all listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has received help for his PTSD and now has two children. He has been working at an oil company and is working on restoring a truck. 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, through counsel, 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 he was suffering from PTSD, which affected his behavior and led to his discharge. The applicant provided evidence from his active duty medical records, which contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Anxiety disorder NOS, with combat stress. He also provided documentation from a civilian provider, which reflects he was diagnosed with PTSD, while on active duty. 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 he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. 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 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 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits, 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 13 September 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), and post-service accomplishments. 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 AR20190004572 1