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 conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, two Soldiers killed a 17 year old teenager off post. Alpha Company's Soldiers G. and B. murdered a kid, V. C., Jr., and it made national news. Soldiers in the Brigade Support Battalion (BSB) were receiving upgraded discharges for drug charges because of the incident. One Soldier told the applicant, the Soldier had been on cocaine for nine months and laughed; the chain of command never knew. The chain of command placed the applicant in charge of these Soldiers, five of whom received an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgrade. The first sergeant (1SG) was moved to another battalion. The 1SG had the handgun the two Soldiers used on the teenager and did not turn it in for a week. The reason was the 1SG's spouse had unregistered weapons in the household and did not want to be caught. The applicant sent congressional paperwork to Representative R.'s office regarding how bad the unit was. The applicant was punished by the chain of command because of the incident. The applicant addressed the matter before, but nothing was being done by the chain of command. The battalion did not correct a minor issue, which became a major issue later. The applicant had family problems and brought them to the attention of the chain of command on several occasions. The issues have been addressed to the applicant's various local political figures. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnosis mitigating the applicant's AWOL 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. 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: 11 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 25 August 2011, the applicant was charged with: The Charge: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 7 September 2010 to 3 August 2011. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 7 September 2011 (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: 29 September 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 September 2005 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 89B2P, Ammunition Specialist / 9 years, 3 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 July 2001 - 1 September 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (26 January 2003 - 15 July 2003; 22 January 2005 - 14 January 2006; 4 May 2007 - 25 July 2008; 26 July 2009 - 22 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-2, MUC, A/AF PUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: March 2005 - 30 August 2010 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 7 September 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective date 8 October 2010; and From "DFR" to "PDY," effective date 3 August 2011. Sworn Statement, dated 19 August 2011, the applicant stated the reason the applicant went AWOL was because of anger issues over certain things not being taken care of in the unit which caused issues in the unit; the applicant's grandparent, the primary guardian growing up had dementia; working long hours; and major stress. The applicant contended having mental health issues: Anxiety; social anxiety; PTSD; PTSD related dreams; and anger issues. The applicant provided Inspector General Action Request, dated 3 September 2011, reflecting the applicant requested assistance from the IG, specifically to clear up the unit. The applicant sent one request to the Congress and one to the division. The applicant provided letter, dated 5 September 2011, reflecting the brigade commander responded to Honorable T. R. regarding an inquiry made on the applicant's behalf, addressing the applicant's concerns involving the chain of command and the applicant's personal situations. The brigade commander revealed the applicant's military offenses, the applicant's claim of missing equipment. The applicant provided Congressional Privacy Release Form, dated 1 August 2011, requesting assistance with the unit, and requesting an honorable release. The applicant provided several documents detailing the issues with the unit, issues with PTSD, family, and the reason for going AWOL. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 27 March 2012, reflects the applicant absence began 7 September 2010 and the applicant was apprehended on 11 October 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 329 days (AWOL, 7 September 2010 - 2 August 2011) / Apprehended j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Initial Psychiatric Evaluation Mental Status Examination, dated 22 September 2010, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with mood disorder, not otherwise specified; rule out PTSD. The applicant contributed the symptoms of anxiety and panic attack to four deployments in Iraq. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; various self-authored statements; Initial Psychiatric Evaluation; Sworn Statements; WRAL News Article "Fort Bragg soldiers face murder charges in teen's death"; Facebook messages; Inspector General Action Request; in-service congressional documents; post-service congressional documents; Army Review Boards Agency, Congressional Liaison, and Inquiries 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 PTSD and a mood disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided a psychiatric / mental status examination indicating a diagnosis of mood disorder, not otherwise specified, ruling out PTSD. 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 a toxic unit environment and being punished by the command for requesting a congressional review. The applicant provided documents reflecting the applicant requested assistance from a congressional representative and the IG. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were discharged with upgraded discharges. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case. 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, Anxiety, Depression. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, 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 was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression. Applicant self-asserts having PTSD at the time of military service and while not formally diagnosed while in service, the Board's Medical Advisor found evidence in the active-duty medical record to support applicant's assertion. Also, the VA has diagnosed applicant post-service with PTSD related to combat. (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 was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression. Applicant self- asserts having PTSD at the time of military service and while not formally diagnosed while in service, the Board's Medical Advisor found evidence in the active-duty medical record to support applicant's assertion. Also, the VA has diagnosed applicant post-service with PTSD related to combat. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant's PTSD likely contributed to the AWOL that led to separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the AWOL basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and a mood disorder affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's PTSD mitigates the applicant's basis for separation due to the nexus between PTSD and avoidance behaviors. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined applicant's family issues does not mitigate or excuse the applicant's misconduct of AWOL, however the there is a nexus between applicant's PTSD and AWOL basis for separation, thus the applicant's PTSD mitigates the AWOL charges. (3) The applicant contends a toxic unit environment and being punished by the command for requesting a congressional review. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the file to support the applicant was punished for requesting a congressional review. (4) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were discharged with upgraded discharges. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the file to support other Soldiers with similar offenses were discharged with upgraded discharges. However, the applicant's PTSD diagnosis mitigates the applicant's basis for separation and the Board voted to upgrade the characterization and narrative reason for discharge. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnosis mitigating the applicant's AWOL 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. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of AWOL. 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: 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, 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 AR20210002035 1