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 under other than honorable condition. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, going through depression during this period of life. The applicant states informing leaders of this, but no one seemed to care. The priority at the time was deploying, not a Soldier being depressed. The applicant states not handling the situation well by staying in their room instead of reporting for duty and was reported as AWOL. The applicant felt they had no one to turn and was hopeless. The applicants' parents were having serious health issues, which also contributed to the applicant's mental state. The applicant lost trust in the chain of command and the counselors. Since the discharge, the applicant has moved to Tennessee and begun to attend church and receives counseling from the pastor. The applicant's life began to change for the better. The applicant states they could have made better choices and sought other ways to handle depression but was young and did not know how to cope. The applicant loved the Army and everything about it and believes everyone deserves a second chance in life. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's depression outweighing applicant's basis of separation - spice use, AWOL and FTRs. 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, and the reentry code to RE-3. Please see Section 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: 4 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 28 February 2012, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL: Specification 1: On or about 8 September fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty. Specification 2: On or about 20 September 2011, without authority, absent oneself from unit, until on or about 22 September 2011. Specification 3: On divers' occasions on or about 23 September 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Specification 4: on or about 13 October 2011, without authority, absent oneself from unit to wit: A Company, 296th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and did remain so absent until on or about 21 October 2011. Specification 5: on or about 26 October 2011, without authority, absent oneself from unit to wit: A Company, 296th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and did remain so absent until on or about 28 October 2011. Specification 6: on or about 10 November 2012, without authority, absent oneself from unit to wit: A Company, 296th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and did remain so absent until on or about 30 January 2012. Specification 7: on or about 15 February 2012, without authority, absent oneself from unit to wit: A Company, 296th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and did remain so absent until on or about 21 February 2012. FG Article 15, 28 February 2011, for on or about 4 February 2011, violate a lawful general order, by wrongfully possessing Spice. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $864 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. CG Article 15, 24 October 2011, for on or about 8 September and 20 September 2011, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty. On 21 September 2011 without authority, absent oneself from the unit, and did remain so absent until on or about 22 September 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $429 (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, 30 January 2012, for on or about 13 October 2011, without authority, absent oneself from unit and did remain so until 28 October 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 3 April 2012 (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: 20 April 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 February 2009 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Operation / 2 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Military Police Report, 4 February 2011, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Fail to obey order; Fail to obey order (Drug Paraphernalia) (on post). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 8 February 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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 and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40- 501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. Service member has been screened for substance use. Already in ASAP. Ten Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 21 September 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 22 September 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 13 October 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 October 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 26 October 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 28 October 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 30 January 2012; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 30 January 2012; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 15 February 2012, and From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 February 2012. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 months, 11 days: AWOL, 21 September 2011 - 21 September 2011 / NIF AWOL, 13 October 2011 - 20 October 2011 / NIF AWOL, 26 October 2011 - 27 October 2011 / NIF AWOL, 10 November 2011 - 29 January 2011 / Return to Military Control AWOL, 15 February 2012 - 20 February 2012 / NIF CMA, 22 February 2012 - 19 April 2012 / Released from Confinement j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored letter 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.) (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 honorable. The evidence in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 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 contends being depressed. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 8 February 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The applicant contends informing leaders of health issues, but no one seemed to care. The priority at the time was deploying, not a Soldier being depressed. The applicants' parents were having serious health issues, which also contributed to the applicant's mental state. The applicant lost trust in the chain of command and the counselors. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. 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 asserts having Depression at the time of military service. The applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, given the nexus between Depression, decreased motivation, loss of energy, isolation, and avoidance, the applicant's asserted Depression likely contributed to the AWOLs and FTRs that led to his separation. There is also a nexus between Depression and self-medicating with substances, so applicant's asserted Depression also more likely than not contributed to his spice use and therefore that misconduct is mitigated as well. (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 applicant's depression outweighed the spice use, AWOL, and FTRs basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being depressed. The Board determined that this contention was valid and voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to depression mitigating the applicant's spice use, AWOL, and FTRs. (2) The applicant contends informing leaders of health issues, but no one seemed to care. The priority at the time was deploying, not a Soldier being depressed. The applicants' parents were having serious health issues, which also contributed to the applicant's mental state. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant's leadership did not care. Ultimately, the Board voted to upgrade the characterization of service due to depression mitigating the applicant's spice use, AWOL, and FTRs. (3) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of 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 applicant's depression fully outweighing the applicant's spice use, AWOL, and FTRs basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's depression outweighing applicant's spice use, AWOL and FTRs basis for separation. 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, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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 misconduct of spice use, AWOL and FTRs. 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 Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 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 AR20210001592 1