1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 October 2019 b. Date Received: 7 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was initially honorable. The applicant was informed of a failed urinalysis while on terminal leave by a friend and fellow Soldier, but thought it was a joke because there was no contact with leadership. While visiting family in Pennsylvania, the applicant was arrested for desertion. The applicant accepted the chapter 10 discharge because there was a need to get back home. The applicant contends there was poor representation and other Soldiers who failed urinalysis received less punishment. The applicant further contends there was honorable service and numerous awards were received for excellence service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 August 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the command's lack of oversight in the notification process to recall the applicant from terminal leave. 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. 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: 13 December 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): Dated 21 November 2017, indicates the applicant was charged with being absent without authority on or about 18 September 2017, and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently from the unit and did remain so absent in desertion until the applicant was apprehended on or about 6 November 2017 and the applicant wrongfully used cocaine between on or about 15 July 2017 and on or about 20 July 2017. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 22 November 2017 (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: 1 December 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 October 2015 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 5 years, 4 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 June 2012 - 25 October 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Djibouti / Djibouti (25 May 2014 - 27 January 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-5, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge-Carbine Bar g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: See charge sheet as described in item 3c(1). The applicant AMHRR also contains a DD Form 214, for the period ending 25 October 2017, reflecting the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 4, due to Completion of Required Active Service, with an Honorable discharge. It is noted this DD Form 214 had not been voided. The applicant's separation packet contains a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) from SSG T., dated 15 November 2017, which states, in part, on 15 September 2017, the applicant was notified that the terminal leave had been cancelled and the applicant was to return to Fort Drum, NY by close of business on 18 September 2017. SSG T explained to the applicant failure to report would result in a change of status to AWOL. SSG T contacted the applicant three times and was told the applicant would report. Multiple members of the medical platoon also contacted the applicant and explain the applicant had to return. The applicant sent texts multiple times asking if it was a joke and if the applicant really needed to return, the applicant was told it was not a joke. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL X 51 days (18 September 2017 - 8 November 2017), The applicant returned to military control. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, AAM Certificate, DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), Letter of support 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. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends the discharge was initially honorable and the applicant was informed of a failed urinalysis while on terminal leave by a friend and fellow Soldier, but thought it was a joke because there was no contact with leadership. The applicant's AMHRR contains a Sworn Statement from SSG T., dated 15 November 2017, which states, in part, on 15 September 2017, the applicant was notified the terminal leave had been canceled and the applicant was to return to Fort Drum, NY by close of business on 18 September 2017. SSG T explained to the applicant failure to report would result in a change of status to AWOL. SSG T contacted the applicant three times and was told the applicant would report. Multiple members of the medical platoon also contacted the applicant and explain the applicant had to return. The applicant sent texts multiple times asking if it was a joke and if the applicant really needed to return, the applicant was told it was not a joke. The applicant contends there was poor representation and other Soldiers who failed urinalysis received less punishment. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. 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 further contends there was honorable service and numerous awards were received for excellence service. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 and found the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Personality Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of ADHD and Adjustment Disorder. The VA's post-service diagnosis of Personality Disorder which, per the diagnostic criteria, would have been present since adolescence and, thus, in-service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's diagnoses do not impair an individual's ability to make conscious choices understanding the consequences. Therefore, the applicant's diagnoses do not mitigate the applicant's AWOL or cocaine use. (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 the applicant's ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Personality Disorder completely outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - AWOL and cocaine use. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was initially honorable and the applicant was informed of a failed urinalysis while on terminal leave by a friend and fellow Soldier, but thought it was a joke because there was no contact with leadership. The Board, though there was no mitigation for the AWOL or Cocaine Use, determined that partial relief was warranted due to only a SSG and below contacting the applicant and not a senior NCO or Command Team Member. (2) The applicant contends there was poor representation and other Soldiers who failed urinalysis received less punishment. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations as each case is unique and handled within its own merit. (3) The applicant further contends there was honorable service and numerous awards were received for excellence service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's service but determined only partial relief was warranted due to the severity of the non-mitigated offenses. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the command's lack of oversight in the notification process to recall the applicant from terminal leave. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions because a member of the Command Team did not notify the applicant of the requirement to be recalled from leave. However, the applicant's AWOL and Cocaine Use are serious offenses, thus no further relief is warranted. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20200000919 1