1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 May 2020 b. Date Received: 5 May 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 a separation program designator (SPD) code change. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant has been diagnosed with service- connected disabilities for mental issues, including depression and problems adopting to change. The applicant was in a very violent marriage at the time when the applicant’s spouse and the applicant were at Fort Riley and the applicant did not know how to handle it. The applicant has since had problems maintaining a stable life for the applicant’s family. The applicant hopes this upgrade will give the applicant the GI Bill the applicant paid into, to get into schooling so the applicant can have a career and provide for the applicant’s family. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 August 2023, 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: 11 April 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Failure to Report on numerous occasions and went absent without leave (AWOL) several times. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 March 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 March 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 August 2009 / 4 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 4 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Seven Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “AWOL,” effective 10 May 2010; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 25 May 2010. From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 15 June 2010; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 15 July 2010; From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 2 September 2010; From “PDY” to “CCA,” effective 2 September 2010; From “CCA” to “PDY,” effective 16 September 2010. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 18 November 2010, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The applicant was informed to complete a mental status evaluation (MSE), however the AMHRR is void a MSE. Five Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 7 April 2011, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), and adverse action (AA), effective 23 November 2010; Other; prohibitions not otherwise identified (9X). The Assignment Eligibility Availability code reflects the applicant was temporarily ineligible for reassignments due to medical, convalescence, confinement due to trial by court martial, enrollment in Track III ASAP, or local bar to reenlistment. FLAGS / AEA codes: AA, BA / C RE/Prohibition code: 9X i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 months, 17 days AWOL, 10 May 2010 - 24 May 2010 / NIF DFR, 15 June 2010 - 1 September 2010 / CCA CCA, 2 September 2010 - 15 September 2010 / Returned to Military Control j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 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 a SPD code change and will be considered for an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three- character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, is “JKA.” The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant has been diagnosed with service-connected disabilities for mental issues, including depression and problems adopting to change. The Army Review Board Agency representatives attempted to obtain medical documents from the applicant to support a mental health diagnosis on 5 August 2021, 22 February 2023, 10 March 2023, and 20 June 2023 but received no response from the applicant. The AMHRR is void a MSE. The applicant contends, in effect, was in a very violent marriage at the time when the applicant’s spouse and the applicant were at Fort Riley and the applicant did not know how to handle it. 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, in effect, the applicant hopes this upgrade will give the applicant the GI Bill the applicant paid into, to get into schooling so the applicant can have a career and provide for the applicant’s family. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 and Mood Disorder. Intimate Partner Violence - offender multiple times, one case lists offender and victim but FAP later noted the spouse engaged in self-defense which may have also been the situation in the prior case. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder in service. IPV - offender multiple times, one case lists offender and victim but FAP later noted the spouse engaged in self-defense which may have also been the situation in the prior case. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder is a low-level difficulty coping with stressors but does not render an individual unable to make conscious choices understanding right from wrong and consequences. Moreover, the applicant clearly laid out the applicant’s choices, justification for those choices, and intended goal of the misconduct; applicant had intact cognitive processes. Although the applicant’s service- connected condition progressed years after discharge, the VA has clearly stated the condition at discharge was Adjustment Disorder; the recent service connected condition is not applicable. Rather, it is more likely than not the applicant’s misconduct was a continuation of a characterological condition existing prior to service which continues post-service. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Mood Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s numerous medically unmitigated AWOL and FTR offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant has been diagnosed with service- connected disabilities for mental issues, including depression and problems adopting to change. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Mood Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s numerous AWOL and FTR offenses. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was in a very violent marriage at the time when the applicant’s spouse and the applicant were at Fort Riley and the applicant did not know how to handle it. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s marital difficulties do not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL and FTR offenses as the Army affords many avenues to Soldiers including seeking separation for hardship. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant hopes this upgrade will give the applicant the GI Bill the applicant paid into, to get into schooling so the applicant can have a career and provide for the applicant’s family. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 contention(s) 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 Mood Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s numerous medically unmitigated AWOL and FTR offenses. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding marital difficulties and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 Change 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 AR20200006606 1