1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 January 2020 b. Date Received: 1 September 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: (1) The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. (2) The applicant seeks relief stating following their deployment they were absent without leave (AWOL) for around 21 days. They made a mistake as they did not know how to cope with the stresses after their deployment, suffering from depression and trouble sleeping. After their separation from the Army, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed their Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from their involvement in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast which their vehicle hit. They are having difficulty in finding jobs they are qualified for due to their discharge and their discharge is affecting their veteran's preference. (3) They waited a long duration in making this request due to the fact that they were not sure if they would be able to upgrade their discharge. After finding out that they have PTSD and are being treated, they know that their discharge was unfair. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 08 December 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and the applicant's PTSD, which mitigate the misconduct - AWOL. Accordingly, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The board determined the RE code was proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / Army Regulations 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: AWOL between on or about 3 June 2014 and on 23 June 2014 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 January 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 March 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W1O, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 11 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / Afghanistan (15 July 2013 - 2 April 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AAM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 2 June 2014 through 24 June 2014, reflects the applicant' duty status changed from Present for Duty to Failure to Report on 2 June 2014, changed from Failure to Report to AWOL on 3 June 2014 and changed from AWOL to Present for Duty on 23 June 2014 after being taken into custody by Military Police. (2) A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 24 June 2014, reflects the applicant received counseling for their AWOL, in violation of Article 86 (AWOL) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in violation of Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), of the UCMJ, and in violation of Article 134 (General Article) of the UCMJ. The applicant received notification of their suspension of favorable actions (Flag) and their chain of command seeking nonjudicial punishment against them. (3) A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 3 July 2014, reflects the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for, without authority, absent themselves from their unit on or about 3 June 2014 and did so remain absent until on or about 23 June 2014. The applicant's punishment consisted of a reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1, forfeiture of $765.00 pay for 2 months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (4) A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 25 August 2014, reflects the applicant was fit for full duty, including deployment. The applicant can understand and participate in administrative processing, appreciate the difference between right and wrong and meets medical retention requirements (i.e., does not qualify for a Medical Evaluation Board). (a) Section V (Diagnoses) reflects medical diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. (b) Section VIII (Additional Comments) reflects the service member has been screened for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. The results of the screening were negative. The psychologist states the service member meets medical retention standards and does not warrant disposition through medical channels. (5) A memorandum, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense [Applicant], 14 September 2016, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a recommended characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) for, between on or about 3 June 2014 and on 23 June 2014, AWOL. On 12 November 2014 the applicant acknowledged the basis for the separation and of the rights available to them (6) On 11 December 2014, the company commander submitted the request to separate the applicant prior to their expiration term of service. The company commander states the applicant has demonstrated the inability to meet Army standards. (7) On 11 December 2014, the applicant completed their election of rights signing they had been advised by counsel of the basis for their separation and its effects and of the rights available to them. (8) A memorandum, Headquarters, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, subject: Separation Under Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 5 January 2015, the separation authority directed that the applicant' be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service and their service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). (9) A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant was discharged on 3 February 2015, with 2 years, and 11 months of net active service this period. The applicant has not completed their first full term of service. (10) The Enlisted Record Brief, dated 4 February 2015, reflects the applicant was advanced to the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 on 5 March 2014 and demoted to the rank/grade of private/E-1 on 3 July 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL, 3 June 2014 - 23 June 2014 / apprehended by Military Police j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA medical records reflecting their diagnosis of PTSD (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE/BHE as described in previous paragraph 4h (4). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * VA Rating Decision reflection their evaluation of PTSD with major depressive disorder, at a 50-percent disability * VA Medical Records, reflecting the applicant's diagnoses and treatment 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, , (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, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 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 (DoD) 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; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553; and DoD Directive 1332.41 and DoD Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 6 September 2011, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) A Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. 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. Paragraph 14-12c (2) (Abuse of Illegal Drugs is Serious Misconduct), stated, however; relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation. (5) Chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), currently in effect, provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 DoD Instructions 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: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) 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. (3) 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. g. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 Edition) stated, military law consists of the statutes governing the military establishment and regulations issued thereunder, the constitutional powers of the President and regulations issued thereunder, and the inherent authority of military commanders. Military law includes jurisdiction exercised by courts-martial and the jurisdiction exercised by commanders with respect to nonjudicial punishment. The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the Armed Forces. Appendix 12 (Maximum Punishment Chart) Manual for Courts-Martial shows the maximum punishments include punitive discharge for violating the following Article 86 (Absence without Leave). h. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by the agency. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): a. The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. b. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the received developmental counseling, nonjudicial punishment for their AWOL and was discharged from the Army. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates their discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). They did not complete their contractual service obligation of 4 years. c. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. d. Neither the applicant nor the AMHRR provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD during the applicant's military service. e. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: e. 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: PTSD-50%SC by the VA. [Note-diagnosis of Adjustment DO with anxiety is subsumed under diagnosis of PTSD]. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found VA service connection for PTSD establishes it began 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 has a mitigating BH condition, PTSD. As there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between his diagnosis of PTSD and applicant's incident of being absent without leave (AWOL). (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 and based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the applicant's PTSD outweigh the misconduct - AWOL basis of separation. f. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that relief was warranted because the applicant's PTSD outweigh the applicant's AWOL - basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. (2) The applicant contends that following their deployment they were absent without leave (AWOL) for around 21 days. They made a mistake as they did not know how to cope with the stresses after their deployment, suffering from depression and trouble sleeping. The board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the applicant's misconduct - AWOL basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. (3) The applicant contends that after their separation from the Army, the VA diagnosed their PTSD from their involvement in an IED blast which their vehicle hit. The board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant length and quality of service, to include combat service and the applicant's PTSD, which mitigate the misconduct - AWOL basis of separation for the aforementioned reason. (3) The applicant contends they are having difficulty in finding jobs they are qualified for due to their discharge and their discharge is affecting their veteran's preference. The board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the post- 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare, or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. g. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD mitigating the applicant's AWOL. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. h. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigating the applicant's AWOL. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: i. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes j. Change Characterization to: Honorable k. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN l. Change RE Code to: No Change m. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20200010316 1