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. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the basis of the request for an upgrade is to right a wrong. The applicant broke their contract obligation and had medical, psychological and immaturity issues that played a part in making bad choices. The applicant states they requested a hardship discharge, drug, and alcohol counseling and a phycological evaluation but was denied by a broken chain of command who threatened them with Article 15’s and prison. The applicant was not provided proper treatment for the drug and alcohol issues, even while not passing a single urinalysis. The applicant had no other option except to go AWOL, at the suggestion of their leadership. The applicant was patriotic, loved their country and enjoyed the job they had in the military. The Army taught the applicant to always do the right thing and live the Army Values. The Army made the applicant a better person. The applicant did nothing to qualify the discharge received. The applicant is currently in prison with no access to medical or military records. The applicant states the DD Form 214 inaccurately reflects being awarded a parachute badge as they did not complete Jump School. For eleven years after the military, the applicant continued to serve the community by working in security and as an EMS professional who responded to 911 calls up to their arrest in 2012. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 July 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 1 February 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 7 June 2001, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for: Specification: departing from the unit on or about 4 January 2001, without authority, and remaining absent until, on or about, 3 June 2001. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 7 June 2001 (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: 25 January 2002 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 February 1999 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 13F1P, Fire Support Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 4 January 2001; and From “AWOL” to “Dropped from Rolls (DFR),” effective 3 February 2001. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 3 June 2001, shows the applicant surrendered to military authorities on 3 June 2001. Charge Sheet described at paragraph 3c (1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 150 days (AWOL, 4 January 2001 – 3 January 2001) / Surrendered to Military Control j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant continued to serve the community for eleven years after the military, by working in security and as an EMS professional who responded to 911 calls up to their arrest in 2012. 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 635-40, paragraph 4-3f(1), states enlisted Soldiers who are approved for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial are ineligible for referral to the MEB and PEB phases of the DES (see AR 635-200). If the Soldier is in the DES process, the applicant’s DES case will be terminated, and the Soldier is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. e. 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. f. 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. g. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. 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 immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends they had medical and psychological issues and requested help but was denied by a broken chain of command who threatened them with Article 15’s and prison. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends they were not provided proper treatment for the medical, psychological and drug and alcohol issues. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of a medical, psychological or drug and alcohol diagnosis. The AMHRR is void of evidence which shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) or a behavioral health evaluation (BHE). The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 31 May 2016 requesting documentation to support a medical, phycological or drug and alcohol diagnosis but received no response from the applicant. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. 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. The applicant contends for eleven years after the military, they continued to serve the community by working in security and as an EMS professional who responded to 911 calls. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The applicant states the DD Form 214 inaccurately reflects being awarded a parachute badge as they did not complete Jump School. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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: Self-asserted Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant self-asserts having Depression at the time of 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 there is no evidence of any mitigating BH conditions. There are no in service diagnoses and the VA has not service connected any BH conditions. While the applicant self-asserts having Depression at the time of military service, he did not submit any medical documentation to support his assertion. Therefore, his asserted Depression does not mitigate the AWOL that led to his separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s asserted depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s youth and immaturity did not outweigh the seriousness of the applicant’s AWOL. The Board also determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the applicant was not provided sufficient access to BH resources. Therefore, no change is warranted. (2) The applicant contends they had medical and psychological issues and requested help but was denied by a broken chain of command who threatened them with Article 15’s and prison. While Board acknowledges the applicant’s assertion of depression, from the records and available evidence the Board was unable to determine whether the applicant’s condition actually outweighed the applicant’s discharge. Without knowing the facts and circumstances relating to the applicant’s discharge, the Board is unable to determine if the applicant’s depression outweighs the applicant’s discharge. (3) The applicant contends they were not provided proper treatment for the medical, psychological and drug and alcohol issues. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s perceived lack of support does not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL as the Army affords many avenues to Soldier’s including seeking separation for hardship. (4) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the applicant’s 2 years and 6 months of service but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s discharge. (5) The applicant contends for eleven years after the military, they continued to serve the community by working in security and as an EMS professional who responded to 911 calls. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s time working in security and an EMS professional do not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of AWOL. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s self-asserted depression did not excuse or mitigate the AWOL offense. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 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 AR20210001843 1