1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 June 2020 b. Date Received: 30 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant has a condition called post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD played a major factor in the applicant’s behavior which contributed to the applicant’s discharge. The applicant started showing major symptoms after returning home from Iraq due to a Red Cross message when a family member passed. Because of the applicant’s condition, the applicant was not able to make sound decisions. The applicant began to draw from everyone and relived events that happened when asleep. The applicant was mentally not in a good place. When the applicant returned to the unit, the applicant was constantly told that they were going to send the applicant back to Iraq. These set of issues is why the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL). Prior to the deployment the applicant was a model, Soldier. Having this condition bears more weight than most can understand. Every day the applicant fights through triggers and symptom and still tries to be a productive citizen, husband, and dad, without any medical help or assistance. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 July 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: 13 December 2007 a. Separation Facts: The applicant’s case separation file is in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR); however, the applicant provided several case separation documents. The information in 3c(1) through (6) were derived from some of those documents. (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 15 November 2007, the applicant was charged with violating Article 86, uniform code of military justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from on or about 19 August 2007 until on or about 31 August 2007, on or about 2 September 2007 until on or about 19 October 2007, and on or about 29 October 2007 until on or about 9 November 2007. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 November 2007 (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: 21 November 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 September 2005 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 21 November 2007. Nine Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “AWOL,” effective 19 August 2007; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 31 August 2007; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 2 September 2007; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 3 September 2007; From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 19 October 2007; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 29 October 2007; From “PDY,” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)” effective 10 November 2007 (should have been AWOL to CMA); From “CMA” to “PDY,” effective 26 November 2007; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 26 November 2007 (this personnel action form was not needed). The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 1 December 2007, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 5 June 2007. The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “A” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-1 effective 18 March 2016. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 86 days AWOL, 19 August 2007 - 31 August 2007 / NIF AWOL, 2 September 2007 - 19 October 2007 / NIF AWOL, 29 October 2007 - 9 November 2007 / CMA j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs Disability rating decision, dated 28 April 2021, reflects the applicant was denied service connection for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Enlisted Record Brief; one third-party letter; partial case separation packet; medical records; self-authored statement; Army Discharge Review Board Case Report and Directive (AR20100018702). 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 AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, that PTSD contributed to the applicant’s AWOL, behavior and discharge. The applicant submitted medical evidence in support of the applicant contention; however, it does not support the applicant’s contention of PTSD. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status and behavioral health evaluations. The applicant contends, in effect, that prior to the deployment the applicant was a model, Soldier. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct after leaving the Army. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found 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 the applicant self asserts that PTSD occurred during active service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s asserted PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s drug use basis of separation as self-medication is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s PTSD actually mitigates the applicant’s AWOL misconduct. Both VA medical record and the Army electronic medical record are void of any diagnoses or notes related to BH conditions. Applicant has provided no civilian medical documentation of any BH or medical condition. However, as per Liberal Consideration, the applicant’s assertion of PTSD being a mitigating factor in his misconduct, is worthy of consideration by the board. Without additional medical evidence and evidence that the applicant had an Iraq deployment, the Board Medical Advisor determined the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s discharge. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s asserted PTSD could outweigh the applicant’s AWOL basis of separation, the Board could not determine whether the applicant’s asserted PTSD actually outweighs the applicant’s AWOL without the Board Medical Advisor determination on medical mitigation. Without additional medical evidence, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s asserted PTSD outweighs the applicant’s discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends that PTSD contributed to the applicant’s AWOL, behavior and discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that while the applicant’s asserted PTSD could outweigh the applicant’s AWOL basis of separation, the Board could not determine whether the applicant’s asserted PTSD actually outweighs the applicant’s AWOL. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted at this time. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, that prior to the deployment the applicant was a model, Soldier. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to outweigh the applicant’s AWOL offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. 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 to all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s asserted Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated AWOL offense. The Board also considered the applicant's contention good service and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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. 11. 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 AR20200008344 1