1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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, in effect, originally being informed the applicant would receive an honorable discharge because of the applicant's mental issues. After months of zero progress regarding the applicant's separation proceedings, the applicant went absent without leave because the applicant had family issues, but the squad leader and platoon sergeant denied the applicant's leave. The applicant believed they needed to leave and went AWOL. The applicant called the platoon sergeant every day to check in per the applicant's commander's request. Once the applicant returned, the applicant was informed the applicant's paperwork for the applicant's discharge was never filed by the company executive officer (XO), and now the applicant was going to be discharged for misconduct. The applicant did not receive an Article 15, which should attest to the applicant's character. The applicant was a good Soldier who made a mistake. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on (1) the applicant's Depression mitigating the applicant's AWOL offense and (2) the totality of the applicant's service record outweighing the medically unmitigated offense of failure to pay spousal support. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable, change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, and change the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 13 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 May 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL), in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In addition, the applicant failed to pay spousal support in accordance with Army Regulation 608-99, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 May 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 October 2010 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 7 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter from applicant's spouse, 28 September 2011, requesting dependent travel and shipment of household goods at government expense for dependents relocating for personal safety. Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, Order for Modification or Termination, 3 October 2011, reflects the applicant's spouse applied for the Order for Protection to be terminated and the request was granted on 12 October 2011. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 January 2012; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 22 February 2012; and From "DFR," to "PDY," effective 22 February 2012. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 10 January 2012, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD with positive results and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Developmental Counseling Forms i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 30 days (AWOL, 13 January 2012 - 21 February 2012) / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Medical Assessment, 13 December 2011, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Treating with Behavioral Health; no current medical issues; and medically cleared. Report of Medical History, 23 April 2012, reflects the applicant reported depression. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Medically cleared. The examiner did not address the reported depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293. 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 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 prescribes 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends mental issues affected behavior and led to the discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant's AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service depression. The record shows the applicant completed a medical assessment on 13 December 2011, and the examining medical physician noted the applicant was receiving treatment from Behavioral Health, but there were no current medical issues, and the applicant was medically cleared. On 23 April 2012, the applicant reported having depression during a medical examination, but the examining medical physician did not comment on the reported condition. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 10 January 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant had been screened for PTSD with positive results and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being informed the applicant would receive an honorable discharge because of mental issues. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends family issues and the actions of the applicant's supervisors affected behaviors and ultimately contributed to the discharge. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling, imposing restrictions, and issuing a no contact order. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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 Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts Depression, 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 that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant also self-asserts having Depression at the time of service. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's behavioral health conditions partially mitigate the discharge. Review of the active-duty medical records substantiates the applicant's asserted Depression as evidenced by a history of taking an anti- depressant in service and having suicidal ideations with a plan. The medical record also reveals that the applicant was continuing to experience the depressive symptoms around the time that the applicant went AWOL. Given the nexus between Depression, decreased motivation, and avoidance, applicant's asserted Depression more likely than not contributed to the AWOL. Therefore, the AWOL is mitigated. However, there is no natural sequela between an Adjustment Disorder or Depression and failing to pay spousal support. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the misconduct (AWOL and failure to pay spousal support) are outweighed by the applicant's behavioral health conditions and other mitigating factors (spouse letter/dropped charge). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends mental issues affected behavior and led to the discharge. The Board found that the applicant's AWOL offense was mitigated by the applicant's Depression. The Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder or Depression outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offense of failure to pay spousal support. However, the Board considered the totality of the case and determined that the applicant's failure to pay spousal support was outweighed by behavioral health conditions, a support letter from the spouse, and the fact that the charge was ultimately dropped. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends being informed the applicant would receive an honorable discharge because of mental issues. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the rationale discussed in 9(b)1 above. (3) The applicant contends family issues and the actions of the applicant's supervisors affected behavior and ultimately contributed the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the rationale discussed in 9(b)1 above. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the rationale discussed in 9(b)1 above. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's Depression mitigating the applicant's AWOL offense and the totality of the applicant's service record outweighing the medically unmitigated offense of failure to pay spousal support. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable, change to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, and change the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry code is proper and equitable and voted not to change it. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Depression mitigated the applicant's AWOL offense. The Board determined that the applicant's failure to pay spousal support offense was outweighed by the totality of the record (behavioral health conditions, a support letter from the spouse, and the fact that the charge was dropped). 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: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200 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 AR20210001537 1