1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2019 b. Date Received: 17June 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 had good service and was a good Soldier. His record of unauthorized absences indicates the only offense in 15 years of service. His ability to serve was impaired because of marital, family, and childcare problems. In a records review conducted on 5 November 2021, and by a 5-0 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, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (diagnosis of PTSD). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: 4 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation: 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: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 November 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 November 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 15 years, 1 month, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 April 2003 - 24 November 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (10 January 2004 - 28 April 2004) and 13 August 2007 - 24 October 2008), Afghanistan (1 July 2010 - 31 May 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-4, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ACM-CS, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-5, CIB, Parachutist Badge, Expert Marksmanship Badge-Carbine Bar g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2008 - 30 September 2009 / Fully Capable 1 October 2009 - 30 September 2010 / Among The Best 30 September 2010 - 29 September 2011 / Fully Capable 29 September 2011 - 13 September 2012 / Fully Capable 14 September 2012 - 13 November 2013 / Fully Capable 14November 2013 - 13 November 2014 / Fully Capable 16 March 2015 - 13 August 2015 / Among The Best 14 August 2015 - 12 August 2016 / Exceeded Standards 13 August 2016 - 12 August 2017 / Exceeded Standards h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, dated 21 November 2018, reflects on or about 27 April 2018, the applicant went AWOL and returned on 14 November 2018. On 16 November 2018, the applicant received one charge of AWOL and on 19 November 2018, a Chapter 10 was submitted. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x 200 days (27 April 2018 - 13 November 2018 / Returned j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, NCO Evaluation Report-9, Enlisted Record Brief, Soldier Deployment History Out-processing Report 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. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant contends he had good service and was a good Soldier. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of the applicants service. The applicant contends his record of unauthorized absences indicates the only offense in 15 years of service. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends his ability to serve was impaired because of marital, family, and childcare problems. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD related to military service. This is a potentially mitigating BH condition. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The VA has rated applicant's diagnosis of PTSD as 70% service connected. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and his period of AWOL. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that PTSD often associated with avoidant behaviors. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the BH conditions outweighed the AWOL separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends he had good service and was a good Soldier. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings, and relief was granted due to mitigating PTSD diagnosis. (2) The applicant contends his ability to serve was impaired because of marital, family, and childcare problems. The Board took familial circumstances into consideration, and voted to upgrade based on mitigating PTSD diagnosis. (3) The applicant contends his record of unauthorized absences indicates the only offense in 15 years of service. The Board took the length and quality of service into consideration and determined that relief was warranted. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (diagnosis of PTSD). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the AWOL offenses. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20190010210 6