1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 September 2019 b. Date Received: 9 October 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was being treated once a month for mental health issues, counseling and medication management, while stationed at Fort Hood, TX, by the base psychologist. The applicant states he had to go through anger management during the course of his treatment, which was recommended by the doctor treating him. The applicant states he was being treated for insomnia, ADHD, depression and other issues and was on various types of medications for these issues. The applicant further states, he was taken off all the medication in one session and told to only take Wellbutrin for depression. After the medication switch, the applicant states, he went into a downward spiral and could not function. The applicant states issues started to arise and instead of being placed on a medical board for his medical issues, he was subjected to UCMJ and discharged. In a records review conducted on 15 June 2022, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 March 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Multiple Failure to Reports, Two 24 Hour AWOLs, AWOL 07-20 October 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 April 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Separating Authority’s Decision is signed but not dated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 February 2008 / 3 years, 16 weeks / The applicant extended the most recent enlistment for 9 months, giving him a new ETS of: 5 March 2012. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 3 years, 2 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / The applicant received orders to deploy to Afghanistan on 29 October 2010, however, there is no indication that he ever deployed. f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Five Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Eight Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 7 October 2010, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 20 October 2010, From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 22 October 2010, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 3 November 2010, From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 16 December 2010, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 17 December 2010. From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 19 January 2011, From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 20 January 2011. Per Commander’s Report FG Article 15, dated 22 December 2010, for departing his unit in an absent AWOL status on 7 – 20 October 2010 and being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 23 December 2010); extra duty for 45 days and restriction to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 45 days. Per Commander’s Report Vacation of Suspension (22 December 2010) for AWOL 16-17 December 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $723 per month for 2 months. Per Commander’s Report CG Article 15, dated 9 February 2011, for failing to report on 6 different occasions and departing his unit in an AWOL status on 19 – 20 January 2011. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $342, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 10 April 2011 and extra duty for 14 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 month, 1 day: AWOL, 7 October 2010 – 20 October 2010 / NIF AWOL, 22 October 2010 – 3 November 2010 / NIF AWOL, 16 December 2010 – 17 December 2010 / NIF AWOL, 19 January 2011 – 20 January 2011 / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 February 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process, however, it was noted in the remarks that his medical records indicated he was treated for AD/HD, sleep disorder and depression but was symptom free and met retention requirements of chapter 3, AR 40-501 at the time of the medical evaluation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214. 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), 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3, prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of insomnia, ADHD or a depression diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 22 February 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis, however, it was noted in the remarks that his medical records indicated he was treated for AD/HD, sleep disorder and depression but was symptom free and met retention requirements of chapter 3, AR 40-501 at the time of the medical evaluation. ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 26 June 2021 requesting documentation to support an insomnia, ADHD or depression diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends once his medication was switched, he went into a downward spiral leading to actions that contributed to his discharge. 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, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Depressive Disorder and ADHD. Post-service, the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD and Anxiety Disorder NOS. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Depressive Disorder and ADHD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that medical records do not support the applicant's in-service depressive symptoms rose to the level of psychiatric impairment potentially resulting in the basis for separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions of Depressive Disorder, ADHD, or Anxiety Disorder NOS completely outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for multiple Failure to Reports (FTRs) and multiple AWOLs. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. (2) The applicant contends once his medication was switched, he went into a downward spiral leading to actions that contributed to his discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members to request assistance personal issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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 contentions 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Depressive Disorder, ADHD, or Anxiety Disorder NOS did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of multiple Failure to Reports (FTRs) and multiple AWOLs. 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 FTR – Failure to Report 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 AR20190014990 1