1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 November 2019 b. Date Received: 2 December 2019 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, the actions leading to the discharge were the result of a severe undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). The applicant contends while the time in combat operations contributed greatly to the PTSD, the major factor in the PTSD was the result of undue persecution and toxic leadership within the unit, including undue command influence. An undue influence of the blotter report had induced each assigned unit to inappropriately impose flagging actions, which were later closed in the applicant's favor. The warranted punishments acknowledged are: an Article 15 in March 2003 for a failed uranalysis (THC) after the applicant's first combat deployment; an Article 15 on 15 April 2006 for DUI on post after a combat deployment; and a General Officer Letter of Reprimand in Germany for having a blood content of (0.05), a violation of host country's BAC level at a US military gate. The applicant contends beyond the punishments, the applicant served in an honorable manner. An undue Command influence existed at each duty station in applying judgement and attempts at undue punishments. The applicant still performed honorably under those conditions. The last valid punishment, a General Officer Letter of Reprimand should have been overcome in 2010. When punished, the applicant had been an E5/SGT for five months and within the same command, the applicant was promoted to E6/SSG 10 months later. During the undue attempts at punishments with flagging actions, the applicant was evaluated and rated at above the pay grade. The applicant received evaluations with the highest ratings each year. In 2014, the applicant was involved in an off-post incident, in which gunshots were fired. The applicant was subsequently arrested and charged. The disposition of the case supports the applicant's actions were not as accused. However, the resulting response within the command was what led to the most traumatic state, causing the applicant to go AWOL multiple times in a short period. Regulatory guidelines were dismissed by the Unit and applied undue punishment, by weaponizing an evaluation report with reporting an unresolved event, in violation AR 623-3. The evaluation would have been most crucial in the applicant's career as it would have rightfully been placed beyond the letter of reprimand. The violation was treated/applied with malice and the applicant was not given due process. The unit's action chaptering the applicant out was without warrant. The toxic traumatic conditions led the applicant to being unable to sleep at night. For the preservation of life, the applicant had to leave the environment at all costs and an embattled career. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 September 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stemming from combat related trauma, outweighing the applicant's basis of separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: 22 October 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 16 September 2015, the applicant was charged with: The Charge: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from Specification 1: the unit on 30 May 2015 and did remain absent until 4 June 2015. Specification 2: the unit on 27 July 2015 and did remain absent until 12 August 2015. Specification 3: the unit on 25 August 2015 and did remain absent until 15 September 2015. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 22 September 2015 (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: 28 September 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 April 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / two-year college / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 36B10, Financial Management Technician / 13 years, 4 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 April 2002 - 15 May 2005 / HD RA, 16 May 2005 - 1 April 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Romania, Bulgaria / Iraq (14 January 2005 - 26 December 2005, 21 June 2010 - 20 June 2011), Romania (14 May 2008 - 14 July 2008), Bulgaria (15 July 2008 - 24 October 2008), Afghanistan (1 September 2003 - 21 May 2004, 21 January 2013 - 17 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM-5, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-2, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2008 - 31 October 2009 / Among The Best 1 November 2009 - 28 February 2010 / Among The Best 1 March 2010 - 28 February 2011 / Among The Best 1 March 2011 - 1 August 2011 / Among The Best 2 August 2011 - 1 August 2012 / Among The Best 2 August 2012 - 1 August 2013 / Among The Best 10 August 2013 - 9 August 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 1 April 2009, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 21 March 2009. During a routine vehicle inspection, when an odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant's breath was detected. A breath test administered revealed a result of 0.55. The legal limit for operating a vehicle on German roadways was 0.05. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 4 June 2015. From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 27 July 2015. From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 12 August 2015. From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 25 August 2015. From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 2 September 2015. Memorandum for Record, dated 2 September 2015, indicates the commander issued a deserter warrant for the applicant because the applicant has been on an AWOL status on 30 May 2015, until 4 June 2015; AWOL status on 27 July 2015, until 12 August 2015; and AWOL status again on 25 August 2015, and has remained absent on the date of the memorandum. Charge Sheet as described at previous paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 62 days (AWOL, 23 July 2014 - 8 August 2014, for 17 days days; 30 May 2015 -4 June 2015, for 6 days; 27 July 2015 - 12 August 2015, for 17 days; and 25 August 2015 - 15 September 2015, for 22 days) / The applicant returned to the unit after each AWOL period, except for the last AWOL, applicant has remained absent. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health The applicant provided a copy of a Healthcare Network letter, dated 18 February 2020, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed and being treated for "Bipolar I Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder," since 5 December 2019. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; continued self-authored statement; seven NCOERs with ending period 31 October 2009, 28 February 2010, 28 February 2011, 1 August 2011, 1 August 2012, 1 August 2013, and 9 August 2014; and GOMOR, dated 1 April 2009. 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.) 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 actions leading to the discharge were the result of a severe undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). The applicant provided a letter from a medical facility indicating being treated for a diagnosis and treatment of "Bipolar I Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Cannabis Use Disorder." The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends while the time in combat operations contributed greatly to the PTSD, the major factor in the PTSD was the result of undue persecution and toxic leadership within the unit, including undue command influence. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, and there is no evidence in the record to show the applicant ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to show the applicant should not be held responsible for the misconduct. The applicant contends beyond the punishments and undue command influence in their applications of judgement and attempts at undue punishments, the applicant still performed honorably and received evaluations with the highest ratings each year. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of the service prior to the incidents causing the initiation of discharge proceeding will be carefully considered by the board according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends being involved and subsequently being arrested and charged for an off- post incident, and although the disposition of the case supported the applicant's involvement were not, as accused, regulatory guidelines were dismissed by the unit and applied undue punishment, by weaponizing an evaluation report with reporting on an unresolved event, which was in violation AR 623-3. Further, the unit's action chaptering the applicant out was without warrant. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Bipolar I Disorder, PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the applicant's GAD, Bipolar Disorder, PTSD existed during military service. (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's GAD stemming from combat related trauma is mitigating, given the nexus between trauma and avoidance. (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 GAD outweighed the applicant's AWOL. The applicant's PTSD and Bipolar disorder were also considered, but primarily GAD which was service-connected outweighed the applicant's AWOL misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the actions leading to the discharge were the result of a severe undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). 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 and determined that the applicant's GAD mitigates the basis of separation, making the current characterization of service inequitable. However, after taking the multiple AWOLs into consideration as well as the applicant's DUI, the Board determined the appropriate characterization of service is General as the totality of the applicant's service record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (2) The applicant contends while the time in combat operations contributed greatly to the PTSD, the major factor in the PTSD was the result of undue persecution and toxic leadership within the unit, including undue command influence. The Board considered this contention and determined to upgrade the characterization of service to General based on the mitigation of the applicant's misconduct due to the applicant's GAD. The Board further determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment by command, 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's contention alone did not outweigh the offenses such that an Honorable discharge would be warranted. (3) The applicant contends beyond the punishments and undue command influence in their applications of judgement and attempts at undue punishments, the applicant still performed honorably and received evaluations with the highest ratings each year. The Board ultimately determined an upgrade was warranted based on the applicant's GAD mitigating the basis of separation. However, after taking the multiple AWOLs into consideration as well as the applicant's DUI, the Board determined the appropriate characterization of service is General as opposed to Honorable. (4) The applicant contends being involved and subsequently being arrested and charged for an off-post incident, and although the disposition of the case supported the applicant's involvement were not, as accused, regulatory guidelines were dismissed by the unit and applied undue punishment, by weaponizing an evaluation report with reporting on an unresolved event, which was in violation AR 623-3. The Board considered this contention and determined there was insufficient evidence submitted regarding the propriety of the separation that would overcome the presumption of government regularity. The Board determined that while the characterization of service was inequitable, the basis for separation did not include evidence that the alleged off-post incident was a determining factor in the discharge, rather DUI and multiple AWOL instances which warranted discharge. (5) The applicant contends the unit's action chaptering the applicant out was without warrant. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's DUI and multiple AWOL instances warranted discharge, though partial relief to the characterization was warranted based on the medical mitigation of the applicant's GAD. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stemming from combat related trauma, outweighing the applicant's basis of separation, and based on the applicant's service voted to grant a partial upgrade. 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 GAD mitigated the applicant's basis of separation - AWOL. However, after taking the applicant's multiple AWOLs into consideration as well as the applicant's DUI, the Board determined an Honorable discharge was not warranted. (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, and requested by the applicant prior to discharge. (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: 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 AR20200007262 1