1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 July 2019 b. Date Received: 15 July 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, because of treatment and circumstances of his situation is the reason he went AWOL. The applicant alleges his chain of command and superiors covered up multiple incidents. The applicant contends had he known his service connected mental health and personal well- being would be this bad, he done all of the earlier. The applicant contends had he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, he could have attained medical benefits. The applicant contends he in debt to Defense Finance and Accounting Service in the amount of $19,731.55. The applicant contends his career was stolen and disgraced because of these incidents. The applicant alleges his command never sought to help or correct these issues. The applicant contends he cannot take his kid to a community football game because of his service connected PTSD that causes anxiety and other mental health problems. The applicant alleges being beaten and hazed during his military service. The applicant desires to receive medical benefits to get the help he needs; and he indicated being homeless. In a records review conducted on 21 June 2021, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis) and homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. 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: 31 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): 24 February 2005 (2) 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. Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from (13 February 2004 to 2 February 2005). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 February 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 April 2005 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 October 2003 / OAD / 730 days / block 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214, date entered active duty this period is incorrect, should read as annotated in the Case Report and Directive. See active duty orders 287-782. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 8 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 18 September 2000 to 21 January 2001 / NA IADT, 22 January 2001 to 11 May 2001 / NA ARNG, 12 May 2001 to 11 October 2003 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 349 days, 13 February 2004 to 1 February 2005; apprehended by civilian authorities. Applicant also had 110 days of excess leave, 11 February 2005 to 31 May 2005. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (three pages); VA Form, 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim (two pages); VA Form 21-078, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD; Letter, Defense Finance and Accounting Service; Applicant's Handwritten Statement (three pages); and VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (five pages). 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 normally are 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.). 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of "4." 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 requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the 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 applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, because of treatment and circumstances of his situation is the reason he went AWOL. The applicant alleges his chain of command and superiors covered up multiple incidents. The applicant contends had he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, he could have attained medical benefits. The applicant contends he in debt to Defense Finance and Accounting Service in the amount of $19,731.55. The applicant contends his career was stolen and disgraced because of these incidents. The applicant contends he cannot take his kid to a community football game because of his service connected PTSD that causes anxiety and other mental health problems. The applicant alleges being beaten and hazed during his military service. The applicant desires to receive medical benefits to get the help he needs; and he indicated being homeless. 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? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, and Sedative/Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Abuse by the VA 14 years after discharge. The Board liberally considered the applicant's assertion that he has PTSD related to service; however, the Board found a preponderance of evidence does not support the existence of such a condition that may excuse of mitigate the discharge. There was no documentation provided by the applicant, beyond his lay statements which the Board liberally considered, or found in the evidence of record to establish a mitigating BH condition at the time of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's Anxiety Disorder was diagnosed 14 years after discharge and the evidence does not otherwise reflect this condition was present during service. The applicant's BH condition occurred post-military service and the VA has not service-connected the applicant's Anxiety Disorder or any other behavioral health diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board found the applicant does not have a condition or experience that mitigates the discharge. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the BH condition listed does not mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army, as the offenses occurred 14 years prior to the diagnosis, and there is no medical documentation which indicates the applicant experienced symptoms at the time of or prior to the misconduct. Further, as noted by the Medical Advisor, unspecified Anxiety Disorder, unlike other types of anxiety conditions such as Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, is not associated with avoidant behaviors. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (NO) Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's non-mitigated offenses outweighed the applicant's BH diagnosis, since there is no evidence that the condition existed at the time of separation. The Board found the applicant's nearly year-long AWOL was not outweighed by his post-service Anxiety Disorder. b. Responses to contentions: (1) The applicant contends that he went AWOL because of treatment and circumstances of his situation. The Board decided that the applicant had other avenues to obtain assistance with the way he was treated, including seeing a chaplain, medical care, etc. There is no indication that the applicant attempted to use any of these before going AWOL. (2) The applicant alleges his chain of command and superiors covered up multiple incidents. The Board considered the applicant's statements, but the ADRB is not an investigative body. The only record of any criminal investigation involving the applicant is the applicant's CID case for AWOL and desertion. Therefore, the Board found the available evidence does not reflect any inappropriate behavior by the applicant's chain of command. (3) The applicant contends had he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, he could have attained medical benefits. The ADRB carefully considered this contention, and voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBH diagnosis, periods of homelessness). (4) The applicant contends he in debt to Defense Finance and Accounting Service in the amount of $19,731.55. The ADRB is limited to upgrade of discharges, and is unable to address issues of indebtedness. Accordingly, the applicant should submit any request for correction of records to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records using a DD Form 149. (5) The applicant contends his career was stolen and disgraced because of these incidents. The ADRB considered this contention, and voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBH diagnosis, periods of homelessness). (6) The applicant contends he cannot take his kid to a community football game because of his service connected PTSD that causes anxiety and other mental health problems. The ADRB liberally considered this contention. However, there is no indication in the applicant's AMHRR of any diagnosis of PTSD. Additionally, the Board's Medical Advisor found nothing in the applicant's VA health record indicating a diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant submitted copies of his Application to the VA for Disability Benefits claiming that the applicant had PTSD, but there is no indication in the VA health record that the VA service connected for PTSD or any OBH condition. Therefore, the Board found a preponderance of evidence does not support a diagnosis of PTSD. (7) The applicant's contention of hazing during service was considered by the Board as a possible mitigating factor causing the avoidance behaviors, such as the AWOL for which he was discharged. The Board voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) based on the applicant's length of service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBH diagnosis, periods of homelessness). c. The majority of the Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, evidence submitted by the applicant, and the available medical evidence only supported an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Board considered, but found an upgrade to honorable not supported by the evidence of record. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. The Board, applying liberal consideration and considering all evidence of record, found the applicant's service, given the long period of AWOL, was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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 inequitable or improper d. Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI diagnosis) and homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions because clemency was warranted and the characterization seemed too harsh, as detailed in Section 9c. The ADRB did not upgrade the applicant to an Honorable Discharge because 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. The Board felt that nearly a year of AWOL was too long to render the applicant's overall service honorable, even after applying clemency and liberal consideration. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge because, despite applying liberal consideration, there were no BH diagnoses which mitigated the misconduct and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) Because the reason was not changed, the SPD/RE code will not change, as the current codes are 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: 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 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 NA - 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 - Reentry 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 AR20190015620 3