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, an upgrade would allow the applicant to attain a federal job. The applicant did not know the applicant could file for an upgrade and therefore it took so long to file. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 May 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 April 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 March 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent without leave from the unit from 29 October 2004, a time during the unit was preparing to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom III, until 20 February 2005, a period of 114 days, a time when the unit had already deployed to a combat zone. The applicant subsequently was absent in desertion from the unit from 6 June until 28 August 2006, a period of 83 days. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 March 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 28 March 2007, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant submitted the waiver based on the Notification stating the applicant could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 March 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 June 2004 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63A10, Abrams Tank System Maintainer / 5 years, 4 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 November 2001 – 14 November 2003 / HD RA, 15 November 2003 – 22 June 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (10 January 2005 – 10 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Four Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 29 October 2004; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date 6 June 2006; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 6 August 2006; and From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective date 28 August 2006. Military Police Report, dated 8 September 2006, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: deserter (surrendered), Article 85, UCMJ (on post). Charge Sheet, dated 18 October 2006, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for without authority being absent from the unit from 6 June to 28 August 2006. Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 11 November 2006. The applicant was charged with one specification. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The Specification: The applicant was absent without leave; guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-1; forfeiture $297 pay; and extra duty for 30 days. Field Grade Article 15, dated 12 November 2005, for being AWOL (between 29 October 2004 to 20 February 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $742 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 197 days, 6 June 2006 to 28 August 2006 and 29 October 2004 to 20 February 2005. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 February 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; was mentally responsible; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant was seen by Behavioral Health on 22 November 2006 upon request by the unit commander. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Pre-separation Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service Members; Record of Emergency Data; Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate; and Enlisted Record Brief. 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) 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. 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 an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant is service connected for PTSD and has a history of service related TBI documented per VA records. (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 is service connected for PTSD and has a history of concussion/TBI. Presumed TBI at the level documented in his history would not result in functional impairment of the nature/degree to mitigate history of multiple AWOL. PTSD secondary to combat experiences in Iraq would partially mitigate the offenses leading to discharge. Specifically, there is a nexus between PTSD and avoidance behaviors such as AWOL, and applicant’s second AWOL offense occurred after the combat-related trauma during applicant’s 2005 deployment. However, the initial AWOL occurred prior to this deployment, thus there is no nexus between PTSD and the initial period of AWOL in late 2004 and early 2005. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and TBI outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – two AWOLs. While the post-deployment AWOL was mitigated via PTSD/TBI, the pre-deployment AWOL could not be mitigated as the applicant had not yet developed these conditions. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD and TBI did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of AWOL and desertion. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as 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 AR20210001966 1