1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 January 2020 b. Date Received: 27 January 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he believes the current discharge status was not given fairly and in consideration of his psychiatric disability. The applicant joined the Army shortly after having taken a medical leave from college for anxiety, a disorder that started at the age nine, as separation anxiety. The applicant still believed he could do well in the Army as he had been rejected before due to a heart murmur. The applicant's recruiter advised him that he could be re- evaluated and likely accepted into the Army, if he discontinued taking psychiatric medication. The applicant managed his anxieties through basic training at Fort Jackson, which was just a few miles from his family home in Columbia and mostly during his special training at Aberdeen. The applicant began to have worsening anxiety problems when he was assigned to Fort Lewis, which was very far from home, and to a combat team that had been together for some time and were preparing to deploy to Iraq. The applicant states, he was not welcomed to the team, and instead was mistreated and isolated. The applicant became very anxious and depressed was forced to witness and participate in the hazing of two of his teammates who were promoted, whereby they had to take turns pounding with open fists uncovered rank pins into the chests of these two men. After that, the applicant had extreme panic attacks, could not sleep, had obsessive thoughts about the mistreatment and fears that the team would not protect him in a war zone and would intentionally put him in harm 's way. The applicant's anxiety became overwhelming, and when he was on leave in June, 2006, he was in a panic state, and did not return, and went AWOL for 29 days. After a few weeks, the applicant made contact with his parents who had him go back to see his psychiatrist. Then, his parents accompanied the applicant to Fort Lewis and arranged for a lawyer to represent the applicant. The applicant's team had already deployed, and the applicant was evaluated by a psychologist at Fort Lewis. The psychologist was very kind and recognized that the applicant's depression and anxiety were real and significant. The applicant's Command decided to incarcerate the applicant for two weeks for being AWOL. The applicant's anxiety and panic increased and afterwards the applicant was discharged with a general discharge, but not honorably, even though he did the best that he could in the Army. Seven months after his discharge, the applicant continued to have depression and anxiety over his Army experience, which led to a psychotic episode and was hospitalized for weeks. Since then, the applicant has been unable to hold a job or go to school. In 2010, the VA determined that the applicant has a 100 percent total and permanent disability for psychotic disorder. Currently, the applicant is married and has six children and tries to build on his disability income doing seasonable landscape work. The applicant has complied with his prescribed medications and VA psychiatrist orders since his hospitalization, including complete abstinence from alcohol or other drugs. The applicant and his family are very active members of their church, and rely on social and emotional support that the church provides. In a records review conducted on 15 September 2021, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's mitigating BH condition, and company command did not sufficiently notify the applicant of the factors regarding seeking a General Discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change. 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: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 January 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 December 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: a medical professional has diagnosed him with a mental condition that potentially could interfere with assignment to or the performance of his military duties. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 December 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 January 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 August 2005 / 3 years, 26 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 45B10, Small Arms/Artillery Repairer / 1 year, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GOWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 18 June 2006; and, From "AWOL" to "Dropped from Rolls (DFR)," effective 16 July 2006/ Charge Sheet, dated 20 October 2006, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority absent himself from his unit (between 18 June and 16 July 2006); and, Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87, did through design miss the movement of his unit, which he was required in the course of duty to move (18 June 2006). Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 8 November 2006. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 86, AWOL between 18 June and 16 July 2006. Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Violation of Article 87, Missing movement on 18 June 2006. Not guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-2; restriction for 10 days; and, confinement for 9 days. Legal Review, dated 4 December 2006, reflects a review of the separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, and determined it to be legally insufficient to proceed. The separation packet recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with a discharge characterization of General, Under Honorable conditions. IAW AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1b, a Soldier must be notified specifically as to the factors justifying a discharge characterized as under honorable conditions under this chapter. No such notification was made in this separation packet. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 37 days: AWOL, 18 June 2006 - 16 July 2006 / Apprehended by Civil Authorities Military Confinement, 8 November 2006 - 16 November 2006 / Released from Confinement. j. DIAGNOSED PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 August 2006, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Depressed and Anxious Mood; Occupational Problem; AD/HD by History; Anxiety Disorder by History; and, Rule Out Personality Disorder NOS with Prominent Cluster a Features (Axis II). Routine Command Directed Evaluation, dated 26 September 2006, reflects the applicant had a long standing history of psychological disorders and problems which have interfered with his ability to integrate well with others in his assigned team. He also had significant personality traits that appear to be significantly impacting his functioning in the military. His anxiety and personality traits manifest in behaviors that are of such severity so as to preclude adequate military service. Although not currently at significant risk for suicide or homicide, due to his lifelong pattern of maladaptive responses to routine personal and/or work-related stressors, he is likely to jeopardize the mission and become a medical and administrative burden on the unit if not separated. This Soldier's anxiety and personality characteristics will not respond to Command efforts at rehabilitation (such as transfer, disciplinary action, or reclassification) or to any treatment methods currently available in any military mental health facility. Recommend separation IAW Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200. DSM-IV DIAGNOSITIC IMPRESSION: Axis I: Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified Axis II: Cluster C Personality Disorder traits. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 13 December 2007, which reflects the applicant was rated 100 percent disability for psychotic disorder (claimed as mental disorder of psychosis). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Military Personnel records; previous medical records; Army medical records; psychiatrist evaluation; hospital evaluation and discharge summary; VA Disability Determination and Benefits letters. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is married and has six children and tries to build on his disability income doing seasonable landscape work. The applicant has complied with his prescribed medications and VA psychiatrist orders since his hospitalization, including complete abstinence from alcohol or other drugs. The applicant and his family are very active members of their church. 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 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. (5) Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier's ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. 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 "JFV" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-17, Condition, Not a Disability. 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. DISCUSSION OF FACTS: 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 applicant contends his anxiety became overwhelming and entered a panic state, which led to his discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was evaluated by competent medical authority and determined the applicant had: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Depressed and Anxious Mood; Occupational Problem; AD/HD by History; Anxiety Disorder by History; and, Rule Out Personality Disorder NOS with Prominent Cluster a Features (Axis II). It was determined the applicant's anxiety and personality characteristics would not respond to Command efforts at rehabilitation (such as transfer, disciplinary action, or reclassification) or to any treatment methods currently available in any military mental health facility. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of a condition, not a disability, with a general (under honorable conditions discharge). Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, states that the service of a Soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry-level separation is required under Chapter 3. The record indicates the applicant was not notified of any specific factors, which would warrant a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. The applicant contends his discharge status was not given fair consideration of his psychiatric disability and is now rated 100 percent disabled for a psychotic disorder. 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. The applicant contends he was not welcomed and was mistreated and isolated by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends he has obtained employment, is drug free and is an active member in his church. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with Atypical Psychosis, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder by the VA, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Review of the VA medical records indicate that Atypical Psychosis could mitigate the failure to perform military service and has service-connected the applicant. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that there is an association between paranoid ideation and avoidant behaviors. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the cause for separation is mitigated by a BH condition, as there is a nexus between the applicant's paranoid psychosis and his being absent without leave. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board applied liberal consideration and concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the seriousness of the applicant's psychiatric diagnosis outweighed the cause for separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends his anxiety became overwhelming and entered a panic state, which led to his discharge. The Board voted to grant relief based off the Psychosis diagnosis and lack of notification to applicant prior to receipt of GD. (2) The applicant contends his discharge status was not given fair consideration of his psychiatric disability and is now rated 100 percent disabled for a psychotic disorder. The Board concurs and voted to grant the requested relief. (3) The applicant contends he was not welcomed and was mistreated and isolated by members of the chain of command. While there was no evidence in the record or supplied to support this contention, relief was already granted due to lack of notifaction process and Psychosis mitigation. (4) The applicant contends he has obtained employment, is drug free and is an active member in his church. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's mitigating BH condition, and company command did not sufficiently notify the applicant of the factors regarding seeking a General Discharge. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service because of post service accomplishments, applicant's mitigating Psychosis, and command did not sufficiently notify the applicant of the factors regarding seeking a General Discharge. This the prior characterization is improper. (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. (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: Honorable 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 AR20200007505 1