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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, going AWOL was not the answer to the applicant's problems, but the applicant was backed into a corner and did not know what else to do at the time. The applicant was having issues with depression and marriage. The applicant talked to the leadership about the issues and tried to seek assistance but was ignored. The applicant was confined to the base, and the spouse at the time wanted to talk. The applicant offered to cook dinner, which was off base. The applicant went off base to buy groceries to make dinner and try to save their marriage. The applicant was caught by the first sergeant and the applicant tried to explain they were trying to save the marriage, but the first sergeant did not want to listen. Instead of trying to get the applicant help, the applicant was reduced from E4 to E1. The applicant was so ashamed confused, and depressed it led to the applicant going AWOL. When the applicant was reduced in rank, the spouse at the time would not have anything else to do with the applicant and filed for divorce. The applicant was AWOL in Fayetteville for about a month when a local police officer ran a license plate and took the applicant in for being AWOL. While in the civilian jail, an MP came and told the applicant someone will be coming back. The applicant was in a civilian Fayetteville jail cell for two weeks, and no one from Fort Bragg ever came back. The applicant was released and assumed was discharged by the Army, so the applicant went back home, started working and tried to start putting their life back together. When the MPs came, the applicant found out of not being discharged after all. The applicant states being treated for depression and the issues started while on active duty while stationed at Fort Gordon. The depression was so bad the applicant went AWOL for a week while stationed in Georgia, but when the applicant returned and explained everything to the first sergeant, the leadership worked with the applicant. The applicant was disciplined and given chores to make up for their actions, but continued to have issues while stationed at Fort Bragg and was not offered or given any assistance to help. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 June 2023, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade 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 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 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 29 November 2001 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 9 August 2000, the applicant was charged with: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 4 January 2000 to on or about 2 August 2000. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 9 August 2000 (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: November 2001 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 July 1999 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / High School Graduate / 81 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 6 years, 5 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 November 1994 - 15 July 1999 / HD RA,16 July 1997 - 18 July 1999 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR / The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant severed in Korea however, the NDSM is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Seven Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 25 December 1999; From "AWOL" to "HOS," effective 26 December 1999; From "HOS" to "PDY," effective 3 January 2000; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 4 January 2000; From "AWOL" to "DFR," effective 4 February 2000; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 9 May 2000 and From "AWOL" to "DFR," effective 9 June 2000. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 7 months, 1 day: AWOL, 25 December 1999 - 27 December 1999 / NIF AWOL, 4 January 2000 - 1 August 2000 / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provided an extract from medical records printed on 12 June 2015, reflect an unspecified counseling. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD form 293; Arrest Report; Superior Court Order; Medical records. 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) 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. (4) 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.) (5) 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 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 honorable discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends having issues with depression. The applicant provided an extract from medical records printed on 12 June 2015, reflecting an unspecified counseling. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a depression diagnosis. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. 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 contends talking to the leadership about the issues and trying to seek assistance but was ignored. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder. Service connection establishes that applicant's Major Depressive Disorder existed 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 is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder which provides mitigation for the basis of separation. Given the nexus between Major Depressive Disorder and decreased motivation and avoidance, applicant's Major Depressive Disorder mitigates the AWOL. The record suggests that the appropriate mitigation has already been applied given applicant's current HD. (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 MDD outweighed the basis for separation - AWOL - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having issues with depression. The Board considered this contention and accordingly, voted to upgrade the discharge based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused 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 MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends talking to the leadership about the issues and trying to seek assistance, but was ignored. 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 MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. Thus, relief is warranted. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) based on the applicant's MDD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation, 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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. 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 AR20210001903 1