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 conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable based on 12 years of service, allegiance, and PTSD. The applicant contends psychiatric problems caused misconduct, which led to the discharge. At the time, the military did not have knowledge the applicant was suffering from an underlying mental illness. The applicant served for three tours and was deployed a portion of each year for five consecutive years between 2004 and 2009. The applicant’s life spiraled out of control. The applicant was left with a severely disabling mental illness, which has made the applicant unable to function accordingly. The applicant is now receiving the treatment necessary to progress and one day hopes to be cured of the mental illness. As of 1 June 2014, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and assigned a 70 percent service-connected disability. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 June 2023, and by a 5-0 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) includes a partial case separation file and the applicant provided a document which is described below in 3c(5). (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 24 April 2014, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL, Specification: Without authority, the applicant departed the unit, on or about 17 April 2014 and remained absent until on or about 24 April 2014. Charge II: Violating Article 89, UCMJ, Specification: On or about 16 January 2014, the applicant behaved with disrespect towards Captain (CPT) T. W., a superior commissioned officer, by spitting in the officer’s face. Charge III: Violating Article 117, UCMJ, Specification: On or about 16 January 2014, the applicant wrongfully used provoking words, to wit: “I’ll play like I’m calm, but when you all let me go, I’m going to fuck you all up” and “I’m going to get you. I’m going to find you on the white pages and follow you home” or words to that effect, towards Specialist C. M. Charge IV: Violating Article 134, UCMJ, Specification: On or about 21 April 2014, the applicant wrongfully communicated to Sergeant First Class J. R. a threat to injure by texting, “You all going to die tomorrow, starting from the BC” or words to that effect. (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (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: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 May 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 January 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / One year of College / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25Q20, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 10 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 July 2003 – 3 October 2007 / HD RA, 8 October 2007 – 7 January 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (12 June 2004 – 30 June 2005; 10 May 2008 – 9 February 2009); Afghanistan (31 May 2006 – 17 January 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-A, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2008 – 27 January 2010 / Fully Capable 27 January 2010 – 24 June 2010 / Marginal 25 June 2010 – 31 March 2013 / Fully Capable 1 April 2013 – 18 October 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 30 September 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for operating a motor vehicle while apparently under the influence of alcohol. A trooper of the Georgia State Patrol administered a series of field sobriety tests, which the applicant failed. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 21 September 2013, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving while impaired after being stopped for failing to maintain the limits of the lane and speeding. The applicant refused to take a lawfully requested intoximeter test. Two Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)” effective 24 April 2014; and From “CMA,” to “PDY,” effective 8 May 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 8 days (AWOL, 17 April 2014 – 24 April 2014) / NIF j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs Decision Letter, dated 21 July 2015, reflects the applicant is receiving 70 percent disability compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with an effective date of 21 May 2014. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense; Department of Veterans Affairs Decision Letter; Medication Reconciliation List Summary; DD Form 214; Separating Authority Decision Memorandum. 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 applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends suffering from an underlying mental illness caused the misconduct that led to the discharge and the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant submitted a decision letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 21 July 2015, reflecting the applicant is receiving 70 percent disability compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with an effective date of 21 May 2014, to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. 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: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depression. (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, Anxiety, and Major Depression. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has BH conditions that provide partial mitigation for the basis of separation. Applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depression. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant’s PTSD may have contributed to AWOL, so this misconduct is mitigated. While PTSD can have a nexus with difficulty with authority, spitting in someone’s face and making threats verbally and over text are behaviors that are grossly inappropriate and outside of the scope of what would be expected as a potential PTSD reaction. None of applicant’s other BH conditions have a natural sequela to this misconduct, so it is not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate AWOL, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depression outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – disrespect, and use of provoking words/threats of death – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Through medically unmitigated misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends suffering from an underlying mental illness caused the misconduct that led to the discharge and because of that, the VA has granted a service- connected disability for PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate AWOL, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depression outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. 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 voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, while the applicant’s BH conditions mitigate AWOL, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Major Depression outweighed the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – disrespect, and use of provoking words/threats of death. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20210001925 1