1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 17 December 2019 b. Date Received: 2 January 2020 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge is for the purpose of being able to return to the Army. The applicant contends that he was unjustly charged with going AWOL for 38 days. The applicant reported to the unit before the reporting order date. The applicant was charged with AWOL based on the instruction in the “Orders.” The instruction told the applicant to report on 10 March 2018, and the applicant reported to the unit on 9 March 2018. The applicant believes he should have never been charge with anything. The applicant never had the intent as he showed up on the time according to the orders. What was done to the applicant was very wrong and should not have been sent up for approval. This cost the applicant his job, career, and future, and the applicant wants it back. The applicant cannot be retained in the service until this is removed. The applicant asks the board to please fix this so the applicant can go back into the Army. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 4 November 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: 24 August 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 July 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having submitted a falsified leave form with a forged signature on or about 30 May 2018; Without authority, on or about 30 January 2018, absent himself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 10 March 2018; On or about 10 March 2018, fled apprehension by Airman J.D.L. an armed force policeman, a person authorized to apprehend the applicant: and On or about 10 March 2018, the applicant unlawfully strike Airman J.D.L., on the leg with his car. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 July 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2017 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 4 years, 9 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 October 2013 to 9 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Kuwait (21 July 2015 to 23 July 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-7, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Department of the Air Force Report of Investigation dated 27 March 2018, which indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for violation of Article 86 (AWOL) and Article 134 (False or Unauthorized Pass) of the UCMJ. FG Article 15 dated 2 May 2018, for without authority absent self from the unit from 30 January 2018 to 10 March 2018, fleeing apprehension by Airman J.L., an armed force policeman on or about 10 March 2018, and unlawfully striking Airman J.D.L., on or about 10 March 2018. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of half month’s pay for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days and an oral reprimand. Memorandum for Record dated 5 June 2018, “Findings and Recommendations,” signed by S.M.H, SFC, USA Investigating Officer, indicates by a preponderance of the evidence that on or about 9 May 2018, the applicant did violate Article 107 False Official Statement and Article 123 Forgery. It was recommended that the applicant receive UCMJ action and considering recent and previous patterns of misconduct that the applicant be administratively separated IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12 from the military. Negative counseling statement for acts of misconduct i.e. (false official statement and forgery). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; permanent change of station orders 333- 3901, dated 29 November 2017 to Lackland Air Force Base; request and authority for leave, dated 11 December 2017; and a synopsis. 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) 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for having submitted a falsified leave form with a forged signature on or about 30 May 2018; without authority, on or about 30 January 2018, absent self from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 10 March 2018; on or about 10 March 2018, fled apprehension by Airman J.L., an armed force policeman, a person authorized to apprehend the applicant: and on or about 10 March 2018, the applicant unlawfully struck Airman J.D.L., on the leg with applicant’s car. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” The applicant seeks relief contending that the applicant was unjustly charged with going AWOL for 38 days. The applicant reported to the unit before reporting order date. The applicant was charged with AWOL based on the instruction in the “Orders.” The instruction told the applicant to report on 10 March 2018, however, the applicant reported to the unit on 9 March 2018. The applicant believes he should have never been charged with anything. The applicant never had the intent as the applicant showed up on the time according to the orders. What was done to the applicant was very wrong and should not have been sent up for approval. This cost the applicant a job, career and future, and the applicant wants it back. The applicant cannot be retained in the service until this is removed. The applicant asks the board to please fix this so the applicant can go back into the Army. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence in the record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses to include (submitting a falsified leave form with a forged signature on or about 30 May 2018), which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant expressed a desire for an upgrade of the discharge for the purpose of being able to return to the Army. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Evidence in the record shows the applicant was assigned an RE code of 3. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Adjustment Disorder was made on active duty. VA has established service connection for PTSD diagnosis. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, PTSD, which mitigates some of the misconduct. As there is a nexus between PTSD and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and the period of AWOL. PTSD, however, does not mitigate the offense of falsifying a leave form with a forged signature, fleeing police apprehension, or unlawfully striking a policeman on the leg with a motor vehicle, as such behavior is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. (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 conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – the offense of falsifying a leave form with a forged signature, fleeing police apprehension or unlawfully striking a policeman on the leg with his motor vehicle as such behavior is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. b. Response to Contention: The applicant seeks relief contending being unjustly charged with going AWOL for 38 days, after following report dates as described on orders. The Board considered this contention but is required to consider the totality of the applicant’s service record. The Board concluded Adjustment Disorder and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of falsifying a leave form with a forged signature, fleeing police apprehension, or unlawfully striking a policeman on the leg with a motor vehicle as such behavior is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. The discharge is, at this time, both proper and equitable due to the serious nature of those offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Adjustment Disorder and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of falsifying a leave form with a forged signature, fleeing police apprehension, or unlawfully striking a policeman on the leg with his motor vehicle as such behavior is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. The applicant’s PTSD mitigated part of the misconduct, specifically the AWOL charge. Therefore, 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 AR20200002699 1