1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 January 2020 b. Date Received: 24 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after receiving a call stating the applicant's grandfather had a terminal illness, the applicant decided to leave the unit without permission. After the applicant's grandfather's death, the applicant tried to return to the unit, but the command decided it was best that the applicant be discharged. The applicant had honorable service including a combat tour. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined the applicant's service was honorable and the applicant is receiving benefits and compensation. The applicant believed the discharge would automatically be upgraded based on the VA's decision. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnoses mitigating the applicant's AWOL charge. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 16 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): Charge Sheet, dated 18 April 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with being absent without authority from on or about 14 February 2011 to on or about 13 April 2011. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 21 April 2011 (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: 7 June 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Bachelor's Degree / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A1P, Human resources Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 September 2007 - 28 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (13 February 2009 - 13 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS-2, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CAB, Parachutist Badge g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant provides a letter from VA dated 8 December 2017, reflecting the applicant's military service for the period 26 September 2007 to 16 June 2011 was honorable for VA purposes. The applicant provides a letter from VA dated 21 January 2020, reflecting the applicant had a 60-percent combined service-connected disability rating. The nature of the disabilities is not listed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x58 days (14 February 2011 - 13 April 2011) / Returned j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, Letters from Department of Veterans Affairs 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant works with youth in mental health and is a motivational speaker and parent. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II). 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends after receiving a call stating the applicant's grandfather had a terminal illness, the applicant decided to leave the unit without permission and after the applicant's grandfather's death, the applicant tried to return to the unit, but the command decided it was best that the applicant be discharged. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends there was honorable service including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends VA determined the service was honorable and the applicant is receiving benefits and compensation. The applicant believed the discharge would automatically be upgraded based on the VA's decision. The applicant provides a letter from VA dated 8 December 2017, reflecting the applicant's military service for the period 26 September 2007 to 16 June 2011 was honorable for VA purposes. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than those used by the Army when determining a member's discharge. 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: PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the VA has established 70% service-connection for PTSD. (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, PTSD related to combat, which mitigates the offense of being AWOL as there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behaviors. (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. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the applicant's AWOL. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends after receiving a call stating the applicant's grandfather had a terminal illness, the applicant decided to leave the unit without permission and after the applicant's grandfather's death, the applicant tried to return to the unit, but the command decided it was best that the applicant be discharged. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with emergency leave, 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 is not an acceptable response, thus the applicant was discharged. However, due to the applicant's PTSD diagnosis outweighing the AWOL, the Board voted that relief was warranted. (2) The applicant contends there was honorable service including a combat tour. 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 AWOL. (3) The applicant contends VA determined the service was honorable and the applicant is receiving benefits and compensation. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant's time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, 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 AWOL. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnoses mitigating the applicant's AWOL charge. The Board considered this contention and determined that relief was warranted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the instance of AWOL. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of AWOL due to the connection between PTSD and avoidance behaviors. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, mitigating PTSD is also service limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20200006753 1