1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 18 May 2020 b. Date Received: 2 June 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 a character of service upgrade. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge the Army Discharge Review Board will consider the applicant for a possible upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that an upgrade should be based on conditions related to PTSD and other mental health issues to include Surgery two times. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 May 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 December 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 8 December 2005, the applicant was charged with being absent from her organization from on or about 13 March 2005 until on or about 28 November 2005. (2) Legal Consultation Date: On 8 December 2005, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for charges preferred against her under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 13 March 2005 to 28 November 2005. (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: 16 December 2005 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 November 2004 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 5 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DA Form’s 4187 (Personnel Action) which indicate the applicant’s duty status changed from: Convalescent Leave to Absent Without Leave (AWOL), effective 13 March 2005 AWOL to Dropped from the Rolls (DFR), effective 13 April 2005, and DFR to Attached / Present for Duty, effective 28 November 2005 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Absent Without Leave 260 days (13 March 2005 to 27 November 2005) / mode of return apprehended by civil authorities. The DD Form 214 under review refers to 19 days of excess leave (10 December 2005 to 28 December 2005). j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): See below (1) Applicant provided: Post-Service letter from the applicant to the Veterans Administration indicating the applicant was in pain physically and mentally while experiencing first systems of PTSD. The applicant also indicated suffering with anxiety from having to return to training after the first of two surgeries which was a big mental challenge itself, but to have painful daily doctor visits for months at a time only to find out they couldn’t return to training after returning from lease was a major disappointment. (2) AMHRR Listed: In service medical documents submitted by the applicant with the application indicate the applicant received two surgeries for a cyst on the tailbone. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs; letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs from the applicant; in-service medical documents; letters of support/character; post-service medical documents from OrthoAlabama Spine & Sports; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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), 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 normally are 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 the discharge. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The evidence of record 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 was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” The applicant seeks relief contending that an upgrade should be based on conditions related to PTSD and other mental health issues to include surgery two times. The applicant contentions were noted; evidence in the record shows that the applicant had repeated medical issues with a surgery in the tailbone area. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis, and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Furthermore, 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. 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 which indicate that the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant asserts that the PTSD condition occurred during military service. However, there is no documentation in the applicant’s file of this diagnosis or any other BH diagnoses. Also, while applicant has provided the board with a self-authored letter to the VA explaining why the applicant feels they have PTSD, the applicant has not provided any civilian medical documentation. However, applicant's contention and self-assertion alone merits consideration by the board. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. There is no documentation in the military medical records that the applicant meets criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. However, applicant has self-asserted she was suffering from PTSD at the time she went AWOL. Her assertion alone is sufficient for consideration by the board. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant does not have a BH condition which mitigated the applicant's AWOL - the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that an upgrade should be based on conditions related to PTSD and other mental health issues to include surgery two times. The Board liberally considered this contention, ultimately the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s asserted medical condition mitigated the basis for applicant’s separation. (2) The applicant requests an upgrade to the discharge. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By going Absent Without Authority (AWOL), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. The Board determined that the documentation contained in the AMHRR, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant did not support a finding that the applicant’s discharge was improper or inequitable. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant does not have a BH condition which mitigates the applicant's AWOL. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, 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 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200008195 1