1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 March 2019 b. Date Received: 18 March 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served for 14 years, with 2 combat deployments with pride and dignity and should have requested a court-martial to plead his case. He was discharged due to his martial relationship falling apart and his chain of command did nothing to help. He went absent without leave (AWOL) because of issues in his marriage. The applicant contends may JAG officers lack the training and experience to oppose discharges successfully. A less than honorable discharge means the loss of GI Bill benefits in most cases and create significant employment problems. The military's frequent failure to diagnosed PTSD or other serious disorders may make it difficult for veterans to show VA they have service-connected problems which warrants care and compensation. In a records review conducted on 27 August 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (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: 6 November 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): Dated 28 March 2018, indicates the applicant was charged with 3 specifications of communicating a threat; being AWOL from on or about 4 March 2018 until he was apprehended on or about 5 March 2018; and 3 specifications of larceny. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 28 March 2018 (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: 19 October 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 October 2017 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 91B, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 14 years, 2 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 August 2004 - 19 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq, (29 November 2005 - 15 November 2006) and (11 March 2008 - 17 March 2009), Afghanistan, (19 July 2010 - 15 June 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-7, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ACM-CS-2, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL, CAB, Driver and Mechanic Badge- Mechanic Clasp g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2010 - 31 May 2011 / Among The Best 1 June 2011 - 31 May 2012 / Fully Capable 1 June 2012 - 22 March 2013 / Fully Capable 23 March 2013 - 22 March 2014 / Highly Qualified 23 March 2014 - 22 March 2015 / Fully Qualified 23 March 2015 - 12 February 2016 / Highly Qualified 13 February 2016 - 11 February 2017 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: see 3c (1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Charge Sheet, dated 28 March 2018, reflects the applicant was AWOL from on or about 4 March 2018, until apprehended on 5 March 2018. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: An Emergency Department Discharge Sheet, dated 26 January 2018, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder (unspecified) and suicidal ideation. A Behavioral Health Discharge Summary reflects the applicant was admitted to psychiatric/psychology from 20 February 2018 to 26 February 2018, for evaluation and management of alcohol use disorder, moderate; suicidal ideations, resolved; and problems in relationship to spouse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Phone records, San Juan County Sheriff's Officer Case Report Summary, Personal letter, medical records, NCOERs-5, Letter of Support, DD Form 214, Separation documents, ERB, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, Permanent Order #119-015, dated 29 April 2011, Memorandum, dated 16 December 2014 (54 total pages supporting documents) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of several offenses 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 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 several acts of significant achievement and valor; however, it appears it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends was discharged due to his martial relationship falling apart and his chain of command doing nothing to help. He went AWOL because of issues in his marriage. The applicant 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 also contends that he had good service, which included two combat tours. 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's contentions pertaining JAG officers lack of training and experience was noted. 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 applicant speaks about the availability of VA benefits. 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. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and PTSD, two BH conditions which are potentially mitigating under Liberal Consideration. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder while in the military. The VA has established via service connection that his PTSD also began in the military. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. Applicant's diagnosis of PTSD mitigates some of his misconduct. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his two periods of AWOL. PTSD, however, does not mitigate his offenses of threatening to murder his chain of command or stealing a weapon in order to carry out this threat. While PTSD occasionally can lead to violent behavior, in these instances, the violence is short-lived, unplanned and, as the violence is usually a recreation of the traumatic event, often not remembered. In the applicant's case, however, his threat to murder his chain of command and his theft of a weapon with which to do so, reflects planning, organization and conscious intent, all features inconsistent with the type of violence usually seen in PTSD. Moreover, the applicant's ability to speak of events prior to, during and after the event are also not typical of PTSD. Accordingly, while Liberal Consideration was applied, the applicant's offenses of making a threat and stealing a weapon are not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board determined the applicant's offenses of making a threat and stealing a weapon with which to carry out that threat outweighed the applicant's PTSD diagnosis due to the egregiousness of the offense. Further, the premeditated nature of the applicant's theft of a firearm and threats to murder the chain of command is not indicative of PTSD symptoms. Therefore, the Board decided that the applicant's PTSD does not outweigh the misconduct leading to discharge. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served for 14 years, with 2 combat deployments with pride and dignity and should have requested a court-martial to plead his case. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings. Further, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to choose between facing a court martial and taking a discharge in lieu of court martial, and chose the latter. (2) The applicant contends he was discharged due to his martial relationship falling apart and his chain of command doing nothing to help. He went AWOL because of issues in his marriage. The applicant 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. (3) The applicant's contentions pertaining JAG officers lack of training and experience was noted. 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. (4) The applicant speaks about the availability of VA benefits. 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. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, while the applicant's AWOL offenses were mitigating by the PTSD diagnosis, the offenses of making a threat and stealing a weapon with which to carry out that threat outweighed any possible mitigation. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190005008 4