1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 September 2020 b. Date Received: 29 September 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, the discharge should be upgraded due to extenuating factors that impacted the applicant’s ability to perform military duties. At the time of the applicant’s service in the Army, the applicant suffered from divesting bouts of depression, anxiety, feelings of suicide and ongoing headaches. The applicant was exposed to racial degradation, workplace ridicule/harassment, threats of workplace violence, as well as sleep and food deprivation daily. The applicant’s inability to see family and ex-fiancé due to the Covid-19 virus led the applicant to experience extreme feelings of isolation. Additionally, one of the applicant’s boot-camp Sergeants committed suicide, which the applicant feels significantly impacted the ability to focus and to perform day-to-day work tasks. These significant factors led to the applicant’s early separation of service and limited the applicant ability to complete a military service contract. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 4 November 2022, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 August 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 July 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failing to obey a lawful order from Major General J.S.K., by traveling outside of a 70-mile radius from Fort Riley on 15 June 2020; and Being absent from the applicant unit from 15 June 2020 until 17 June 2020 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 March 2020 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 August 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 April 2019 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19K10, Armor Crewman / 1 year, 4 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DA Form’s 4187 (Personnel Action) indicating the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave (AWOL), effective 15 June 2020 AWOL to PDY, effective 17 June 2020 Memorandum for Record, dated 22 June 2020, reference “Acknowledgment to 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley Commanding General Order number 1 and Stay at Home Directive in Response to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).” Memorandum for Record, dated 22 June 2020, reference “The applicant’s acknowledgment to 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley Commanding General’s Order.” Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 July 2020, indicates a clinical interview of the applicant’s medical record was completed. The applicant denied suicidal ideation, planning, or intent. The applicant screened negative for PTSD, depression, SI/HI, sexual assault, TBI, and psychosis. The report also indicates the applicant met the medical retention requirements of Chapter 3, paragraph of AR 40-501 and did not require a medical board for psychiatric purposes. The applicant was cleared for chapter 14 separation. This opinion was based solely on the clinical judgment of the provider and did not constitute a forensic legal opinion as it pertained to criminal responsibility, state of mind at the time of the alleged behavior that was the basis for the administrative separation, competency, or other determinations typically required by courts. The applicant received Negative counseling statement for acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 2 days (15 June 2020 to 17 June 2020) / mode of return / surrendered. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical documents submitted by the applicant with his application indicates the applicant had active problems with Adjustment Disorders with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Mental Health and Behavioral Health Records; Medical Records; and separation packet. 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order from Major General J.S.K., by traveling outside of a 70-mile radius from Fort Riley on 15 June 2020; and being absent from the applicant unit from 15 June 2020 until 17 June 2020. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” The applicant seeks relief contending the discharge should be upgraded due to extenuating factors that impacted the applicant ability to perform his military duties. At the time of the applicant service in the Army, the applicant suffered from divesting bouts of depression, anxiety, feelings of suicide and ongoing headaches. The applicant was exposed to racial degradation, workplace ridicule/harassment, threats of workplace violence, as well as sleep and food deprivation daily. The applicant inability to see his family and ex-fiancé due to the Covid-19 virus led the applicant to experience extreme feelings of isolation. Additionally, one of the applicant boot-camp Sergeants committed suicide, which the applicant feels significantly impacted his ability to focus and to perform day-to-day work tasks. The significant factors lead to the applicant early separation of service and limited the applicant ability to complete his military service contract. The applicant’s contentions were noted; medical documents submitted by the applicant indicates he had active problems with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood; Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. However, medical documents in the AMHRR at the time of discharge indicate a clinical interview of the applicant’s medical record was completed. The applicant denied suicidal ideation, planning, or intent. He screened negative for PTSD, depression, SI/HI, sexual assault, TBI, and psychosis. The report also indicates the applicant met the medical retention requirements of Chapter 3, paragraph of AR 40-501 and did not require a medical board for psychiatric purposes. The applicant was cleared for chapter 14 separation. This opinion was based solely on the clinical judgment of the provider and did not constitute a forensic legal opinion as it pertained to criminal responsibility, state of mind at the time of the alleged behavior that was the basis for the administrative separation, competency, or other determinations typically required by courts. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorders with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. . (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found a diagnosis of Adjustment DO was made during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition. While the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorders with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, this condition does not mitigate the offenses of disobeying a general order and being AWOL as this condition does not affect one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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’s Adjustment DO’s outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – disobeying a general order and being AWOL – as this condition does not affect one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that the discharge should be upgraded due to extenuating factors that impacted the ability to perform military duties – divesting bouts of depression, anxiety, feelings of suicide and ongoing headaches; racial degradation; workplace ridicule/harassment; threats of workplace violence; sleep and food deprivation. The Board considered this contention; however, while the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorders with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, this condition does not mitigate the offenses of disobeying a general order and being AWOL as this condition does not affect one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with interpersonal issues like harassment, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant going AWOL is not an acceptable response, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged (2) The applicant seeks relief contending inability to see family and ex-fiancé due to the COVID-19 virus led to experience of extreme feelings of isolation and a boot-camp Sergeant committed suicide, which significantly impacted the applicant’s ability to focus and to perform day-to-day work tasks. The Board considered these contentions but determined that the applicant disobeyed a general order and was AWOL, and this is not an acceptable response to said issues. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the 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 not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorders with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of failure to obey a general order and going AWOL due to the applicant clearly considered the action and consequences prior to the misconduct. 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. (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 AR20200009566 1