1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 January 2020 b. Date Received: 11 February 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable; a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharged inequitable because the applicant was still in an Entry Level Status (ELS) status. The applicant believes the separation would be under ELS. The applicant took the under other than honorable conditions (UOTH) discharge, not knowing the consequences the applicant may encounter in civilian life because of an UOTH discharge. The applicant's commander allowed the applicant to take leave during Advanced Individual Training (AIT) to attend the birth of the applicant's child. But when the applicant returned to training, the applicant was informed because of the missed training days the applicant had to recycle. The applicant was not informed of being recycled if the applicant went on leave. The applicant wanted to be with family, so while waiting for the next training cycle to start, the applicant made a bad decision to go absent without leave (AWOL). This was the applicant's only mistake up to this point. The applicant was young and immature at the time which affected the applicant's behavior, not fully understanding the severity of the situation. The applicant decided the best option was to surrender to military authorities, agreeing to a chapter 10 because the applicant did not want to take a court-martial, and this would allow the applicant to return home to family. The applicant is a devoted parent with two children, one the applicant is homeschooling and currently employed in a management position. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 February 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization is improper because the applicant's length of service was not long enough to be properly assessed, the misconduct of AWOL was committed during initial entry training. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Uncharacterized. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 12 September 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 9 May 2007, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, Specification: for on about 23 February 2007, absent without leave, and remain absent until 6 May 2007. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 9 May 2007 (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: 29 August 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 August 2006 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 10 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c(1). Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 February 2007; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 25 March 2007; and, From "DFR," to "PDY," effective 6 May 2007. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 16 August 2007, indicates the applicant surrendered to military authorities on 6 May 2007. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 10 September 2007, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA), effective 23 February 2007; was ineligible for reenlistment due to No Disqualification (Eligible for immediate reenlistment) (10). The Assignment Eligibility Availability code reflects the applicant was eligible for PCS reassignment, subject to normal PCS TOS restrictions. There is no termination date. The applicant was reduced from E-2 to E-1 effective 29 August 2007. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 71 days: AWOL, 23 February 2007 - 5 May 2007 / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; five third-party letters; resume; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment working up to a management position, married for thirteen years with two children; home schooling one child. 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) 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. 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. 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 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 AR 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because the applicant was still in an Entry Level Status (ELS) status and not fully understanding the consequences of accepting an UOTH discharge; and leadership gave inaccurate information about the potential consequences the applicant may encounter in civilian life of accepting an UOTH. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635- 200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received and that the separation authority had the right to approve an under other than honorable characterization of service for discharge. The understanding of rights was authenticated with the applicant's signature, dated 9 May 2007. Y Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, 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 youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2- 3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct before and after leaving the Army. The applicant wants to obtain employment and is a devoted parent with two children, and one is being home schooled. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the characterization was improper because the applicant was still in an Entry Level Status (ELS) status and not fully understanding the consequences of accepting an UOTH discharge; and leadership gave inaccurate information about the potential consequences the applicant may encounter in civilian life of accepting an UOTH. The Board considered this contention and determined that UNC is the proper characterization of service as the applicant's service was not long enough to be properly assessed. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for a character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. In this case, the Board determined the characterization was improper because the applicant's length of service was not long enough to be properly assessed - the misconduct of AWOL was committed during initial entry training. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Uncharacterized. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Uncharacterized because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined the characterization of service was improper because the applicant's length of service was not long enough to be properly assessed; the misconduct of AWOL was committed during initial entry training. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Uncharacterized. No other relief to the narrative reason or RE-code are warranted. (5) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant going AWOL intentionally while waiting for a new class date is not an acceptable response, thus the applicant's discharge was warranted. However, the characterization of service was improper so the Board voted to upgrade that portion. (6) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention all with the totality of the applicant's service record. In this case, the Board determined that while the discharge was improper, the misconduct of AWOL during initial entry training warranted discharge, and the applicant requested, and was granted, in lieu of a court martial therefore not relief is warranted at this time. (7) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-4, which is a no-waivable code. The applicant is not eligible for reenlistment at this time. (8) The applicant contends obtaining employment and a devoted parent with two children, one the applicant is homeschooling. The Board considered this contention along with the totality of the applicant's service record but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable because the applicant's length of service was not long enough to be properly assessed - the misconduct of AWOL was committed during initial entry training. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Uncharacterized. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code are proper and equitable and voted not to change them. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 Uncharacterized because the applicant was informed of the separation prior to being enlisted long enough for proper evaluation and should have still been in ELS standing. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code since the applicant's had numerous instances of misconduct during initial entry training in addition to the AWOL, so the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable as well as the Chapter 10 was requested by the applicant to avoid a court martial. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Uncharacterized 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 AR20200005242 1