1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 February 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, when first joined the Army, the applicant loved everything the Army had to offer, a career and a desire to retire from it. The applicant attended basic training and AIT without any trouble. Upon arriving at the first duty station, the applicant loved being close to home and being able to make new friends and family. It was the beginning of a new life. The applicant became the go-to Soldier for any task at hand. Years later, the applicant received the good conduct medal. The applicant reenlisted before the first term was up, followed by a year of combat tour in Iraq. Upon arriving, the applicant thought of never being able to make it back home. Things the applicant had never seen or could have imagined, happened there. The applicant being injured in Iraq made things even more difficult. During several missions, the applicant thought, it may be the last day of living. Everything changed when the applicant returned home from the deployment. The applicant had thought of having left all the bad memories in Iraq, but they followed the applicant home. The applicant started drinking more not caring and feeling like the whole world was against the applicant. At the same time, those whom the applicant became family with, started to leave going to different places and the applicant had no one to talk to. The applicant lost the family because of the behavior amid all the things the applicant was going through. The applicant lost focus and everything the applicant worked for within a few months after making bad choices. The experiences in Iraq are still haunting the applicant. The applicant is not the same person who left to serve the country and needs some help. The applicant is trying to get the life back in order, for the children and family. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 March 2023, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined the characterization is inequitable based on the applicant's pre-, in-, and post-combat quality of service indicating PTSD symptoms which mitigate FTRs and AWOLs. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions), but the Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge, accompanying SPD code, and RE code. 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: 19 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 22 February 2012, the applicant was charged with The Charge: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for five specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty and six specifications of being AWOL, as follows: Specification 1: failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 30 August 2011, 0630 accountability formation; Specification 2: failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 28 September 2011, 0600 accountability formation; Specification 3: failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 21 October 2011, 1300 hours work call; Specification 4: failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 28 October 2011, 0630 accountability formation; and Specification 5: failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on 18 November 2011, 0630 accountability formation. Specification 6: being AWOL on 16 December 2011, and remaining absent until 19 December 2011; Specification 7: being AWOL on 21 December 2011, and remaining absent until 4 January 2012; Specification 8: being AWOL on 5 January 2012, and remaining absent until 19 January 2012; Specification 9: being AWOL on 23 January 2012, and remaining absent until 25 January 2012; Specification 10: being AWOL on 27 January 2012, and remaining absent until 1 February 2012; and Specification 11: being AWOL on 3 February 2012 and remaining absent until 22 February 2012. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 7 March 2012 (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: 2 April 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 April 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / High School Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 4 years, 4 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 October 2007 - 29 April 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (19 December 2009 - 10 December 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: MUC, AGCM, ICM-CS, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 2 June 2011, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol. After being stopped for operating a vehicle while intoxicated on 13 May 2011, the applicant failed to properly perform a breathalyzer test. Sixteen Developmental Counseling Forms for on numerous occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty; being AWOL; failing to obey an order or regulation; and being insubordinate towards an NCO. Eleven Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 16 December 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 19 December 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 21 December 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 4 January 2012; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 5 January 2012; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 19 January 2012; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 23 January 2012; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 25 January 2012; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 27 January 2012; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 1 February 2012; and From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 3 February 2012. County Sheriff's Department Uniform Booking Form reflects the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence on 13 May 2011. Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 35 days (AWOL (21 December 2011 - 3 January 2014 for 14 days; 5 January 2012 - 18 January 2012 for 14 days; 23 January 2012 - 24 January 2012 for 2 days; and 27 January 2012 - 31 January 2012 for 5 days) / The applicant returned to duty after each AWOL occurrences. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and AGCM certificate and orders. 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) 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 is 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. 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence in the applicant's 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 good service and had received a good conduct medal, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being injured in Iraq. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends the bad memoirs and experiences of Iraq followed the applicant upon returning home, which caused the applicant to start drinking, and the behavior caused the applicant to lose the family. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of any behavioral health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be the applicant's responsibility to provide the appropriate documents such as behavioral health diagnoses by a competent medical authority, for the Board's consideration since they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends needing help to get the life back in order, for the family. Eligibility for veterans' benefits 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. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. However, the board determined that it was highly likely the applicant suffered from combat related PTSD due to the applicant's service record prior to, during and after a combat deployment, misconduct related to attempts as self-medication, avoidant type misconduct and testimony supporting common PTSD symptoms. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The board determined it was highly likely the trauma resulting in PTSD occurred during the applicant's combat deployment prior to the misconduct. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a mitigating BH condition, PTSD for the DUI, FTRs and AWOLs. Because the sequela of PTSD includes avoidance the applicant's FTRs and AWOLS are mitigated. Because there is a nexus between substance usage to manage symptoms of PTSD and the applicant's DUI, the DUI is also mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the misconduct of DUI, AWOL and FTR. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the BH conditions outweighed the cause for separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service and had received a good conduct medal, including a combat tour. 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 pre combat, combat and post combat quality of service. In this case, the Board determined that an upgrade was warranted. (2) The applicant contends the bad memories and experiences of Iraq followed the applicant upon returning home, which caused the applicant to start drinking, and the behavior caused the applicant to lose the family. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's DUI, AWOL and FTR - basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends needing help to get the life back in order, for the family. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's DUI, AWOL and FTR. 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 the applicant's mitigating condition outweighed the misconduct, and the previous characterization was inequitable. However, the frequency of the applicant's mitigated (but not wholly excused) misconduct diminished the applicant's service quality of service below that sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable in addition to being request 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: 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 AR20200006629 1